BuildXL Alternatives
Similar projects and alternatives to BuildXL
-
oil
Oils is our upgrade path from bash to a better language and runtime. It's also for Python and JavaScript users who avoid shell!
-
Keycloak
Open Source Identity and Access Management For Modern Applications and Services
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
-
sso-wall-of-shame
A list of vendors that treat single sign-on as a luxury feature, not a core security requirement.
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
-
Concourse
Concourse is a container-based continuous thing-doer written in Go.
-
Microsoft Research Detours Package
Detours is a software package for monitoring and instrumenting API calls on Windows. It is distributed in source code form.
-
wireit
Wireit upgrades your npm/pnpm/yarn scripts to make them smarter and more efficient.
-
-
-
-
-
earthly-solutions
Solutions leveraging Earthly Core, Satellites, and CI
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
BuildXL reviews and mentions
-
We built the fastest CI in the world. It failed
Seems they came up with a way to scale up build toolchains with BuildXL[0]
Doesn't seem fully baked yet though
-
Using Landlock to Sandbox GNU Make
> With regards to chroot, I stand corrected. I knew it was a tree of symlinks, but I thought it was also more than that because symlinks alone don't seem like a sandbox. Honestly, Cosmopolitan's system appears to be more of a sandbox than that.
To be totally clear: the tree of symlinks thing is a fallback, used only when lacking platform support or when sandboxing is explicitly turned off [0]. On Linux, the normal sandboxing strategy is to use namespaces, like most container runtimes. On Mac it apparently uses sandbox-exec (some opaque Apple tool), as was mentioned above. Chroot, being both non-POSIX, requiring root access on many systems, and not providing the necessary facilities is not really a great fit -- which I assume is why it's not used.
There was experimental Windows sandbox support at one point [1] based on how MS does it for BuildXL (their own build tool for giant monorepos) [2]. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be maintained, and under the hood it's kinda ugly -- it actively rewrites code in-memory to intercept calls to the Win32 APIs [3], which was apparently the cleanest/best way MS could come up with. However, from Bazel's POV it works in a roughly similar way -- you spawn subprocesses under a supervisor, which is in charge of spinning up whatever the target process is with restrictions on time/memory usage/file access.
On the "sandbox in the interpreter" thing: what kind of checks are you envisioning? It seems like putting checks at that level would end up leaving a lot out -- the goal of any build system is to eventually spawn an arbitrary process (Python, gcc, javac, some shell script, etc.) and so even with extensive checks in starlark you'd end up with accidental sandbox breaks all over the place. For pure starlark rules you could e.g. check that there are no inputs from /usr, but even then if gcc does it implicitly, you're SOL. Or am I thinking of the wrong kind of checks?
[0] https://bazel.build/docs/sandboxing#sandboxing-strategies
[1] https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/5136#issuecomment...
[2] https://github.com/microsoft/BuildXL/blob/master/Documentati...
Stats
microsoft/BuildXL is an open source project licensed under MIT License which is an OSI approved license.
The primary programming language of BuildXL is C#.