[arch-dev-public] devtools will require running systemd
Hi all, I am working on using systemd's nspawn instead of plain chroot. I was wondering if any DEV or TU does not run systemd on his build system and is also not able to switch to it yet (e.g. as not all daemons have been ported yet). Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On 15 September 2012 19:26, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on using systemd's nspawn instead of plain chroot. I was wondering if any DEV or TU does not run systemd on his build system and is also not able to switch to it yet (e.g. as not all daemons have been ported yet).
Greetings,
Pierre
-- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
I'm not using systemd and I don't want to switch to systemd on my development machine any time soon. Is there some significant gain in using nspawn instead of chroot? I see nothing wrong about chroot. The most significant change I can see is that nspawn limits access to /sys etc. to be read-only. However, I don't think RW access is a real show stopper, as the chroots are used only for building. If there's anything I can do (such as fixing bugs specific to chroot) to put back the move to systemd I'll try to do it. Have a nice day, Lukas
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not using systemd and I don't want to switch to systemd on my development machine any time soon.
Are there any specific problems that is holding you back from using systemd? If so, I'd be happy to help sorting them out. -t
On 15 September 2012 19:43, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not using systemd and I don't want to switch to systemd on my development machine any time soon.
Are there any specific problems that is holding you back from using systemd? If so, I'd be happy to help sorting them out.
-t
No, it's just that I don't like its design. If I'd like it, I'd be probably working hard to fix the problems in case I had some.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not using systemd and I don't want to switch to systemd on my development machine any time soon.
Are there any specific problems that is holding you back from using systemd? If so, I'd be happy to help sorting them out.
-t
One problem was the fact that nspawn requires a terminal, so using it from a cronjob is hard or impossible. I asked about it, and Lennart added this to systemd's TODO recently.
Am 15.09.2012 19:37, schrieb Lukas Jirkovsky:
If there's anything I can do (such as fixing bugs specific to chroot) to put back the move to systemd I'll try to do it.
It's not too complex to add support for both; I just would have saved the investment if nobody would have needed it anyway. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On 16 September 2012 01:26, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on using systemd's nspawn instead of plain chroot. I was wondering if any DEV or TU does not run systemd on his build system and is also not able to switch to it yet (e.g. as not all daemons have been ported yet).
I am not running systemd either. But also, I don't often use archbuild locally (i.e. I rely on brynhild). -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Il 15/09/2012 19:26, Pierre Schmitz ha scritto:
Hi all,
I am working on using systemd's nspawn instead of plain chroot. I was wondering if any DEV or TU does not run systemd on his build system and is also not able to switch to it yet (e.g. as not all daemons have been ported yet).
I am not running systemd. -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
The whole nspawn thing puts a bit of a crimp in those of us who us build helpers. But there are exciting workarounds! I was going to post a clever one liner that gets around nspawn, but I am not clever enough to get it on one line. I needed 9. And screen. And you need to manually tell it when the build is done. And you can only build one thing at a time. Those last two are kind of annoying, but whatever. if ! grep pkgbuilder <<< "$(ssh pkgbuild.com screen -ls)"; then ssh pkgbuild.com screen -d -m -S pkgbuilder fi # start build # '-X exec' runs in a clean shell (~, non-tty) and is not usable # '-X stuff' needs everything escaped ssh pkgbuild.com screen -rx pkgbuilder -p0 -X stuff \ "cd\ ~/packages/pkgbuilder-$pkgname/\;\ \ sudo\ extra-x86_64-build\;\ \ sudo\ extra-i686-build\;\ \ echo\ 'Press\ ^a\ d...'$'\015'" # wait for user to detach ssh -t pkgbuild.com screen -rx pkgbuilder -p0 Contact me privately if you'd like to see the rest of the build script - I don't consider it nice enough to post here. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
The whole nspawn thing puts a bit of a crimp in those of us who us build helpers. But there are exciting workarounds!
I was going to post a clever one liner that gets around nspawn, but I am not clever enough to get it on one line. I needed 9. And screen. And you need to manually tell it when the build is done. And you can only build one thing at a time. Those last two are kind of annoying, but whatever.
if ! grep pkgbuilder <<< "$(ssh pkgbuild.com screen -ls)"; then ssh pkgbuild.com screen -d -m -S pkgbuilder fi
# start build # '-X exec' runs in a clean shell (~, non-tty) and is not usable # '-X stuff' needs everything escaped ssh pkgbuild.com screen -rx pkgbuilder -p0 -X stuff \ "cd\ ~/packages/pkgbuilder-$pkgname/\;\ \ sudo\ extra-x86_64-build\;\ \ sudo\ extra-i686-build\;\ \ echo\ 'Press\ ^a\ d...'$'\015'"
# wait for user to detach ssh -t pkgbuild.com screen -rx pkgbuilder -p0
Contact me privately if you'd like to see the rest of the build script - I don't consider it nice enough to post here.
-Kyle http://kmkeen.com
Notice pkgbuild.com's motd. I already installed a helper to use.
On 10/7/12, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
Notice pkgbuild.com's motd. I already installed a helper to use.
Yeah, I saw that and was not terribly impressed. It trashes stdout/error. Useless. Anyway, whole thing is irrelevant because heftig pointed out that "ssh -t pkgbuild.com ..." works fine for non-interactive commands. The only change us over-scripters need to make is adding '-t'. -Kyle
participants (7)
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Jan Steffens
-
keenerd
-
Lukas Jirkovsky
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Rashif Ray Rahman
-
Tom Gundersen