[arch-dev-public] Building in a clean chroot
I had two somewhat related bug reports recently. One of made it obvious that the packager wasn't building in a chroot. The second one was for a missing makedepends on a package that was added to the repo less than a day earlier. I figured this one might be from a dirty chroot, but after contacting the maintainer, it turns out he doesn't build in a chroot for "any" architecture packages. So here we have two people packaging for the repos building outside of chroots. Where there's two, there's probably more that just haven't been discovered yet. I inquired about this on IRC and was told there is no written policy, they just thought it was understood by all. Is this then something that's currently left to the maintainer's discretion? Is it policy and just not written? Is it something that should be written policy? Doug
On 25/06, Doug Newgard wrote:
I had two somewhat related bug reports recently. One of made it obvious that the packager wasn't building in a chroot. The second one was for a missing makedepends on a package that was added to the repo less than a day earlier. I figured this one might be from a dirty chroot, but after contacting the maintainer, it turns out he doesn't build in a chroot for "any" architecture packages.
So here we have two people packaging for the repos building outside of chroots. Where there's two, there's probably more that just haven't been discovered yet. I inquired about this on IRC and was told there is no written policy, they just thought it was understood by all. Is this then something that's currently left to the maintainer's discretion? Is it policy and just not written? Is it something that should be written policy?
It's considered "highly recommended" but there's no firm policy for it, though I agree that there likely should be. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public [mailto:arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Johannes Löthberg Verzonden: donderdag 25 juni 2015 18:58 Aan: Doug Newgard CC: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] Building in a clean chroot
I had two somewhat related bug reports recently. One of made it obvious
On 25/06, Doug Newgard wrote: that the
packager wasn't building in a chroot. The second one was for a missing makedepends on a package that was added to the repo less than a day earlier. I figured this one might be from a dirty chroot, but after contacting the maintainer, it turns out he doesn't build in a chroot for "any" architecture packages.
So here we have two people packaging for the repos building outside of chroots. Where there's two, there's probably more that just haven't been discovered yet. I inquired about this on IRC and was told there is no written policy, they just thought it was understood by all. Is this then something that's currently left to the maintainer's discretion? Is it policy and just not written? Is it something that should be written policy?
It's considered "highly recommended" but there's no firm policy for it, though I agree that there likely should be.
IMHO we should require building in chroots. We have infrastructure for this. Requiring chroots would be a step closer to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43407
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 09:21:12AM +0200, jan@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public [mailto:arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Johannes Löthberg Verzonden: donderdag 25 juni 2015 18:58 Aan: Doug Newgard CC: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] Building in a clean chroot
I had two somewhat related bug reports recently. One of made it obvious
On 25/06, Doug Newgard wrote: that the
packager wasn't building in a chroot. The second one was for a missing makedepends on a package that was added to the repo less than a day earlier. I figured this one might be from a dirty chroot, but after contacting the maintainer, it turns out he doesn't build in a chroot for "any" architecture packages.
So here we have two people packaging for the repos building outside of chroots. Where there's two, there's probably more that just haven't been discovered yet. I inquired about this on IRC and was told there is no written policy, they just thought it was understood by all. Is this then something that's currently left to the maintainer's discretion? Is it policy and just not written? Is it something that should be written policy?
It's considered "highly recommended" but there's no firm policy for it, though I agree that there likely should be.
IMHO we should require building in chroots. We have infrastructure for this.
Requiring chroots would be a step closer to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43407
+1 for forcing build in chroot. It should be mandatory and is not hard at all to do. There are some edgecases where a chroot will break the building of a package, but we should be able to add 'exceptions' for specific packages (with a flag or config). -- Ike
On 29/06, Ike Devolder wrote:
+1 for forcing build in chroot. It should be mandatory and is not hard at all to do. There are some edgecases where a chroot will break the building of a package, but we should be able to add 'exceptions' for specific packages (with a flag or config).
Hmm, might be worth it to documment some semi-common issues that might arise from building in a chroot or container. Like that with projects using tup you have to either bind in /dev/fuse from the host into the container, or make tup generate a shell script (through an undocummented command..) -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
On 29/06/15 17:16, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 29/06, Ike Devolder wrote:
+1 for forcing build in chroot. It should be mandatory and is not hard at all to do. There are some edgecases where a chroot will break the building of a package, but we should be able to add 'exceptions' for specific packages (with a flag or config).
Hmm, might be worth it to documment some semi-common issues that might arise from building in a chroot or container. Like that with projects using tup you have to either bind in /dev/fuse from the host into the container, or make tup generate a shell script (through an undocummented command..)
Is there any reason that devtools should not do that? A
On 29/06, Allan McRae wrote:
On 29/06/15 17:16, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 29/06, Ike Devolder wrote:
+1 for forcing build in chroot. It should be mandatory and is not hard at all to do. There are some edgecases where a chroot will break the building of a package, but we should be able to add 'exceptions' for specific packages (with a flag or config).
Hmm, might be worth it to documment some semi-common issues that might arise from building in a chroot or container. Like that with projects using tup you have to either bind in /dev/fuse from the host into the container, or make tup generate a shell script (through an undocummented command..)
Is there any reason that devtools should not do that?
No, not really. Right now I build my private packages with: testing-x86_64-build -r ~/packaging/chroots -- -d /dev/fuse -- -c /var/cache/pacman/pkg But it would be easy to either add a flag to archbuild to add that makechrootpkg argument, or add it to makechrootpkg instead. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Doug Newgard
-
Ike Devolder
-
jan＠jgc.homeip.net
-
Johannes Löthberg