[arch-dev-public] makechrootpkg without aufs2
t.powa at gmx.de
Sun Jan 24 02:38:46 EST 2010
Am Sonntag 24 Januar 2010 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>
> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >>> On 24/01/10 09:08, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> >>>> Hi devs,
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>> This can be easily done by changing this in makechrootpkg:
> >>>> mount -t aufs none -o
> >>>> "dirs=$chrootdir/$LAYER=rw:$chrootdir/root=ro" "$uniondir"
> >>>> to
> >>>> rsync -a --delete --progress -h -c -W "$chrootdir/root/"
> >>>> "$uniondir"
> >>>> <snip>
> >>> You get a +1 from me for the idea. But looking at the rsync line, I
> >>> think that this will not work if I use makechrootpkg with "-- -i" to
> >>> install a package then use it without "-c" to build on top of that? I
> >>> guess we should not do the rsync if "-c" is not specified.
> >> I'm fine with this approach. aufs was used originally (well, unionfs)
> >> because it was a cheap way to say "don't break this chroot". Copying
> >> is fine.
> >> BUT (there's always a but), some systems are size restricted. For
> >> instance, slicehost slices have very limited disk space, so copying
> >> the chroot to do this has potential to cause issues. I don't like
> >> special case code for shitty systems, but perhaps we could keep both
> >> aufs and rsync code in there, enabled by a command line switch? (-U
> >> use a union (aufs) to keep chroot clean [DEPRECATED])
> > How many people are building clean packages on a size-restricted
> > system? I'm guessing this is an edge case where you might be one of
> > the few exceptions.
> Tis true, I was just pointing out that it COULD cause issues. For
> instance, if you home partition is small and you're bittorrenting
> 8gigs of Friends episodes (like Dan does all the time), you might end
> up running out and not being able to build until the torrent is done
> and you move them to some other location.
> It's definitely not a show stopper, but using rsync isn't without its
> own problems
When this change happens, shall we drop the aufs patch too from kernel?
I don't use it at all.
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the arch-dev-public