builder: documentation and naming adjustments #1351
Conversation
|
I'm still missing to go through the former building docs and adjust them to be present in docs/building directory (and fix links). I'm also missing an update to non CO-RE ebpf building (regarding comment #1273 (comment)) |
Files responsible for building tracee container images: - builder/Makefile.tracee-container - builder/Dockerfile.alpine-tracee-container - builder/entrypoint.sh Files responsible for local building environment: - Makefile.tracee-make - Dockerfile.alpine-tracee-make - Dockerfile.ubuntu-tracee-make
- start reorganizing building docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👋 @rafaeldtinoco I left a few technical remarks about mkdocs before I dive into the actual build instructions.
Also, do you happen to know why the mkdocs target is failing on macOS?
$ make -f builder/Makefile.mkdocs
make -f ./builder/Makefile.mkdocs mkdocs-build
/bin/sh: -c: line 1: syntax error: unexpected end of file
make[1]: *** [.check_tree] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
I think I've addressed all of them. About the Makefile.mkdocs in OSX, I don't think default OSX make tool supports the ONESHELL directive I'm using. You may |
Co-authored-by: Daniel Pacak <pacak.daniel@gmail.com>
| In this case system libraries libelf and zlib are required as well. | ||
| * Tracee's eBPF probe pre-compiled (see [eBPF Compilation](./ebpf-compilation.md) section for more info). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why removing this line? We still support TRACEE_BPF_FILE
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thats not the only change needed I'm afraid. We need a full review to pre-requisites (which I plan to do after Makefile.one is set to default). Not only preqrequisites to be honest, all documentation (and how to run containers).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we probably should do it.
Anyway, we should keep this line
| @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ func prepareBpfObject(config *tracee.Config, kConfig *helpers.KernelConfig, OSIn | |||
| kVersion = OSInfo.GetOSReleaseFieldValue(helpers.OS_KERNEL_RELEASE) | |||
| kVersion = strings.ReplaceAll(kVersion, ".", "_") | |||
|
|
|||
| bpfFilePath = fmt.Sprintf("/tmp/tracee/tracee.bpf.%s.%s.o", kVersion, tVersion) | |||
| bpfFilePath = fmt.Sprintf("%s/tracee.bpf.%s.%s.o", traceeInstallPath, kVersion, tVersion) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we want to support looking for the bpf object in the same directory of the executable like we did in the past? I use it many times when I check on non-core environments (so I don't have to install the bpff object)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why don't you use sudo TRACEE_BPF_FILE=./file ./dist/tracee-ebpf ... instead ? You can point anywhere you want. WDYT ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because I'm too lazy and don't want to write TRACEE_BPF_FILE=./file :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll check that (and see if Makefile.one is ready for that as well).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's too much of a hassle, we can give it up
This PR addresses some concerns brought from @yanivagman after the PR #1273 was merged. It changes building documentation to
docs/directory and updates related documentation accordingly.