[arch-dev-public] makechrootpkg without aufs2

[Tobias Powalowski]

Am Sonntag 24 Januar 2010 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 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>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> >> 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.
> 
> Not just yet, the ISOs use aufs, and there's no real good system to replace
>  that
> 
Ok, just an other thing, 
shall i add aufs patch to the lts kernel if we bump it to .32?
Just in case to be able to provide lts install isos.

greetings
tpowa

-- 
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20100124/4e5d7d5f/attachment.bin>