Use of non-distro CPAN package Memory::Process without trouble?

[hartwork]

Hi!

If I'm not mistaken, LCOV code uses CPAN module Memory::Process since at least LCOV 2.0 (precisely commit 5f659f6) while neither Debian nor Gentoo seem to have a distro package providing CPAN package Memory::Process. I do not understand yet how both distros are able to package LCOV >=2.0 without any dependency on a package providing Memory::Process files. If that runtime(?) dependency is not a problem, it would be interesting to understand how and why now. Thanks!

Best, Sebastian

[henry2cox]

Three reasons:

• the tool only tries to use Memory::Process if parallelism is enabled and a memory constraint is applied.
  I suspect that most users are not using parallelism (disabled by default) - and are not trying to constrain resources, if they have enabled parallel processing.
• if Memory::Process is not available (and the package error is ignored), then the tool falls back to try to use the /proc filesystem instead (...which will fail on windows, for example).

[hartwork]

@henry2cox thanks for elaborating! Just thinking aloud:

• are there any more widely package alternatives to Memory::Process in CPAN that would be worth switching to?
• would it make sense to only use Memory::Process on Windows and always parse /proc on Unix-ish?
• would it make sense to check for Memory::Process sooner at runtime so that packagers may notice lack at runtime (hopefully already when studying the change log of the next release) and package the missing dependency as a new package to depend on?

[henry2cox]

Hmm...my opinions, below (hopefully subject to change given convincing rational argument):

• don't know of any such packages - but also haven't really looked.
  This could be more painful than expected as we want a package which is included (easily) on all the common distributions - including various linux flavors as well as cygwin, mac, windows, etc. That might be a high-ish bar.

• My strong preference is to use standard libraries and packages when available - such that those packages hide platform differences behind their API. I expect those packages to be thoroughly tested on different platforms and versions - and thus to be more stable than whatever hack I might come up with.
  In this specific case: using /proc is guaranteed to fail on windows - which leads to an undesirable (to me) conditional path around the windows implementation.

• The check for Memory::Process is in the init_parallel_params function - which gets called fairly early - right after command line and config file options are parsed - so any failure should happen before any significant computation starts.
  Do you observe some long delay in some case? (That would likely be a bug.)
  In general, though: yes. It is desirable for the tool to check for dependencies and fail quickly if something is missing. That behaviour may not be consistent across all dependencies - though I am not aware of any such issues (but I also haven't done a thorough check for them).

[hartwork]

@henry2cox the check and import are guarded by a number of conditions though, which is why I never saw the error before. Here's a trigger:

# bin/genhtml -j 2 --memory 100 dummy
Attempting to retrieve memory size from /proc instead
genhtml: ERROR: (package) package Memory::Process is required to control memory consumption during parallel operations: genhtml: ERROR: Can't locate Memory/Process.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Memory::Process module) (@INC entries checked: [..])
        (use "genhtml --ignore-errors package ..." to bypass this error)

I guess we could take that command to distros and ask them to package Memory::Process given that they already have LCOV >=2.0 packaged:

# git tag --contains 5f659f63801ef7f94c50a0eb5cffa1ea70f73651 | sort -V
v2.0
v2.1
v2.1-beta
v2.1-beta2
v2.2
v2.2-beta
v2.3-beta

[hartwork]

@henry2cox report sent to Gentoo: https://bugs.gentoo.org/947616

[hartwork]

@henry2cox report sent to Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1092268

[hartwork]

@henry2cox report sent to Gentoo: https://bugs.gentoo.org/947616

Now fixed through two new Perl packages:

• dev-perl/Memory-Process (and its own dependency:)
• dev-perl/Memory-Usage

[hartwork]

@henry2cox should we close as "fixed in Gentoo, Debian notified, done"?

[henry2cox]

In general, I prefer that whoever opened the issue be the one to decide that things are complete and close it :-)
That way: we run less risk that my interpretation of the requirement is substantially different than the issue author.

That said: yeah - I think so. Sounds reasonable to me.