On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 13:21:37 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Marco d'Itri (2017-03-09):
> > I think Simon did a great job analyzing this, so I fully support merging
> > his patch.
>
> Thanks, I've just done so. Hopefully the changelog entry I added is
> neither too short nor
Marco d'Itri (2017-03-09):
> On Mar 09, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > If nobody (esp. Ben & Marco) objects to them, I guess you could push
> > them to master once alioth is back?
> I think Simon did a great job analyzing this, so I fully support merging
> his
On Mar 09, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> If nobody (esp. Ben & Marco) objects to them, I guess you could push
> them to master once alioth is back?
I think Simon did a great job analyzing this, so I fully support merging
his patch.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Hi,
Simon McVittie (2017-03-06):
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 at 19:41:14 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I have filed #856877 against schroot suggesting mounting a new instance
> > of /dev/pts, effectively making schroot behave less like chroot and more
> > like a container manager
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 at 19:41:14 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I have filed #856877 against schroot suggesting mounting a new instance
> of /dev/pts, effectively making schroot behave less like chroot and more
> like a container manager in this particular respect.
>
> However, that causes a nasty
I have filed #856877 against schroot suggesting mounting a new instance
of /dev/pts, effectively making schroot behave less like chroot and more
like a container manager in this particular respect.
However, that causes a nasty regression for interactive use (ttyname()
won't report that the
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 at 14:31:31 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 at 11:13:39 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > If debootstrap inside a container is meant to work, then this would seem
> > like a job for an autopkgtest. I'll try to write one if someone can tell me
> > which
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 at 14:31:31 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> * schroot/1.6.10-3:
> - sbuild profile: bind-mounts host /dev/pts only
> + in the real device node case, we're fine
Actually no - running script inside schroot inside an lxc container on a
jessie kernel, with lxc from
Control: tags 817236 + patch
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 at 11:13:39 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If debootstrap inside a container is meant to work, then this would seem
> like a job for an autopkgtest. I'll try to write one if someone can tell me
> which containerization technologies (systemd-nspawn?
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:13 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 at 10:27:38 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > The temporary workaround with /dev/ptmx could be made optional. It's
> > not OK to break the previously working configurations.
>
> If I'm understanding the situation
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 at 10:27:38 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:54 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > setup_devices_simple() could be easily modified to create /dev/ptmx with
> > mknod instead of the current symlink.
That's presumably:
- ln -s pts/ptmx $TARGET/dev/ptmx
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.87
Followup-For: Bug #817236
(Not CCing people on purpose because this doesn't add to the current thread's
discussion:)
Just wanted to add for the record (e.g. online readers) that Ansgar's
workaround of replacing the current fstab /dev/pts line does works to
On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:54 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Nov 20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > > This is not needed at all from Linux 4.7. The open operation on
> > > /dev/ptmx automatically looks up the sibling pts/ directory. (Also,
> > > every mount of devpts is a 'new
On Nov 20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > This is not needed at all from Linux 4.7. The open operation on
> > /dev/ptmx automatically looks up the sibling pts/ directory. (Also,
> > every mount of devpts is a 'new instance'.)
> >
> > It seems to me that the change in debootstrap
reassign 817236 debootstrap 1.0.85
reassign 841935 debootstrap
forcemerge 817236 841935
affects 817236 pbuilder sbuild schroot
stop
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:03:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ben Hutchings (2016-11-07):
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:02:14 +0100 Ansgar
Ben Hutchings (2016-11-07):
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:02:14 +0100 Ansgar Burchardt
> wrote:
> > Package: schroot
> > Version: 1.6.10-2
> > Severity: important
> >
> > debootstrap recently replaced the /dev/ptmx device node with a symlink
> > /dev/ptmx ->
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:02:14 +0100 Ansgar Burchardt
wrote:
> Package: schroot
> Version: 1.6.10-2
> Severity: important
>
> debootstrap recently replaced the /dev/ptmx device node with a symlink
> /dev/ptmx -> pts/ptmx[1]. This changed the default permissions from
>
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 11:41 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 09, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> > in the sbuild profile's fstab. To accommodate old chroots that
> > still
> > have a /dev/ptmx device node, an additional bind mount
> >
> > ${chroot}/dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx
On Mar 09, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> in the sbuild profile's fstab. To accommodate old chroots that still
> have a /dev/ptmx device node, an additional bind mount
>
> ${chroot}/dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx none rw,bind 0 0
>
> is needed to make sure only the devpts' ptmx
Package: schroot
Version: 1.6.10-2
Severity: important
debootstrap recently replaced the /dev/ptmx device node with a symlink
/dev/ptmx -> pts/ptmx[1]. This changed the default permissions from
world-writable (0666) for /dev/ptmx to no-access () in chroots[2].
This causes build failures as,
20 matches
Mail list logo