+1 for --isolation

st 18. 9. 2019 v 15:33 odesílatel John Florian <[email protected]>
napsal:

>
> On 9/11/19 6:14 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 11. 09. 19 v 11:56 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> >> Please comment there:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/331
> >>
> >> Copy of Comment #0:
> >> This is Request For Comments.
> >>
> >> When systemd-nspawn has been added to mock, it brought a lot of bugs.
> For the transition period we introduced
> >> --old-chroot and --new-chroot. The intent was to steer toward the new
> chroot as mock running containers is more secure
> >> and everything. And maybe one day allow choosing between nspawn,
> docker, podman and others.
> >>
> >> But the world went another way. When people are interested in
> containers, they usually do not want mock to run a
> >> container, but they run mock inside of a container. When mock is
> running inside of container then there is no need for
> >> additional isolation and no one really wants to run another container
> inside of a container. Therefore the --old-chroot
> >> is a good choice when you run inside of a container.
> >>
> >> My intention is to keep --old-chroot indefinitely and actually
> recommend it when mock is running in a container. And
> >> maybe later automatically choose old or new one depending on if mock is
> running in a container or on bare metal.
> >>
> >> In this situation, the names old/new are quite misleading. As it hints
> that you should rather use the new stuff rather
> >> than the old ones.
> >>
> >> Therefore I want to rename (in fact, make alias) for those command-line
> options.
> >>
> >>      --old-chroot -> --simple-chroot
> >>      --new-chroot -> --container-chroot ??? I want to avoid confusion
> here whether this option use container for chroot
> >> (nspawn) or it is recommended to use when running in container.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear your comments and ideas.
> >>
> > My first idea was:
> >
> >      --old-chroot -> --chroot
> >      --new-chroot -> --container
> >
> > But that is probably the confusion you are talking about. So should you
> > change this to something like `--isolation=[chroot,nspawn]`? At the and,
> > there are tools/technologies such as chroot and nspawn, which mock
> > facilitates to "isolate" (of course we can debate what level of
> > isolation chroot provides ...) the build environment from the rest of
> > the system.
>
> I like the idea of `--isolation=`.  To me this affords the best
> clarity and also makes room for values of {none,{auto|detect}} or
> whatever as well should those ever seem appropriate.
> _______________________________________________
> buildsys mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
>


-- 

            Tomas Kopecek <[email protected]>
            Release Engineering Development, RedHat
_______________________________________________
buildsys mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]

Reply via email to