| 1 |
Am Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:36:28 -0400 |
| 2 |
schrieb Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Bertram Scharpf |
| 5 |
> <lists@×××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On Saturday, 17. Sep 2016, 10:31:17 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > Am Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:49:04 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > schrieb Bertram Scharpf <lists@×××××××××××××××.de>: |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> [...] |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > You could |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > # mount -o bind /usr/portage/tmp /var/tmp/portage |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > and then point the portage tmp dir to that directory. From there, |
| 18 |
> > > ebuilds cannot see the .git of /usr/portage. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > As long as I do not set GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I don't think that if you navigate upwards after following a bind |
| 23 |
> mount that you end up in the tree that was mounted. Ie, |
| 24 |
> /var/tmp/portage/.. = /var/tmp, not /usr/portage. With a symbolic |
| 25 |
> link it would resolve to /usr/portage unless the shell does something |
| 26 |
> clever. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> You can mount bind mounts into containers, and I'm pretty confident |
| 29 |
> the container can't navigate out into the rest of the filesystem that |
| 30 |
> way. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
True. This is why I suggested a bind mount and not a symlink. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Kai |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives