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.
