From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137A0138247 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC9ADE0A90; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46EFDE0A90 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 2127) id 7836633F612; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE16633EECB for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 02:50:04 +0000 (UTC) From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] mounts changes was: [PATCH 5/6] modules/generic_stage_target.py, modules/stage1_target.py: Add a target_mounts dictionary In-Reply-To: <20140101185335.GK29195@odin.tremily.us> Message-ID: References: <1388282230-3563-1-git-send-email-dolsen@gentoo.org> <1388282230-3563-6-git-send-email-dolsen@gentoo.org> <20131229024911.GH29195@odin.tremily.us> <20131229035239.GK29195@odin.tremily.us> <1388458480.24088.99.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> <20140101185335.GK29195@odin.tremily.us> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Archives-Salt: b7d9e76e-8846-4871-87b9-eec2334d170c X-Archives-Hash: 4d7594042cfcecf3bdd4a7fa9e635cd4 On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 06:05:35AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>> On Sat, 2013-12-28 at 19:52 -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 06:49:11PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: >>>>> Hmm. I'm not how this is handled at the moment, but don't we want: >>>>> >>>>> mount -t proc none /tmp/stage1root/proc >>>>> >>>>> instead of: >>>>> >>>>> mount --bind /proc /tmp/stage1root/proc >>>>> >>>>> The handbook is currently using --rbind as well [1]. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe food for a future series :p. >>>> >>>> After Douglas Freed talked me off the devtmpfs ledge on >>>> #gentoo-releng, my current suggested mount changes are: >>>> >>>> -t: >>>> proc >>>> --rbind: >>>> sys >>>> dev >>>> portdir >>>> port_logdir >>>> port_tmpdir >>>> kerncache >>>> ccache >>>> icecream >>>> drop: >>>> devpts (now that we --rbind /dev) >>>> distdir (now that we --rbind portdir) >>>> packagedir (now that we --rbind portdir) >>>> >>>> For distdir/packagedir, I'd be find if the source defaulted to None >>>> (meaning “don't mount anything”) but could be configured to a path >>>> (meaning “--rbind this after you've --rbind-mounted portdir”). >>> >>> No, we can't drop distdir and packagedir. The default locations for >>> those are waiting for the catalyst changes to be completed. That is the >>> reason I got started rewriting catalyst a year ago. Those 2 directories >>> are being relocated OUT of the tree. Like they should have been all >>> along. >> >> As I've already mentioned on #gentoo-releng, there are also 2 reasons this >> is a no-go for me: >> >> 1. it's unlikely we want to share pkgdir between the host and the targets >> we build >> >> 2. sharing pkgdir between incompatible targets would fail miserably. For >> example, skimmer does amd64 builds for hardened and non-hardened, multilib >> and no-multilib. It also does x86 builds. Sharing a package between any or >> at least most of those targets would fail and cause broken stages. > > So packagedir should just come from the pkgcache. That makes sense. > I still think /dev should be mounted via --rbind, and likely other > user-configurable sources as well. If we remove a user-configurable > packagedir source and keep the rest of this --rbind proposal, does > that address all of your concerns? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the proposal to use --rbind for portdir. The rest seems ok. > Cheers, > Trevor Regards, Jorge.