On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:15:08 +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:52:22PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** Bastian Blank ::
You have a linux kernel ready, which allows chroot as normal user?
Please share it with us.
It's called QEMU :-)
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The chroot is not really suitable for anything but exclusive use by
sbuild (otherwise you risk messing it up by installing random stuff
so that it's no better than the host environment...).
You could always use a separate chroot for user access, but I
On 8/23/05, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Did someone suggest to disallow that?
Why can't you do both?
Joe Smith writes:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the
package to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software.
The probability that the developer has the particular package that will
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Do I need to have root on the debian developer machines? I currently use
that machines to build packages for architectures I don't own.
Bastian
--
The best
** Joe Smith ::
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user
from recompiling on his own system, which thusly
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:06:41PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I vehemently disagree. I think exactly the opposite: debbuild and/or
dpkg-buildpackage should *always* build a package inside a clean and
minimal chroot jail. This way, (1) every package will predictably
build from
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:28:22PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:06:41PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I vehemently disagree. I think exactly the opposite: debbuild and/or
dpkg-buildpackage should *always* build a package inside a clean and
minimal chroot
On Tuesday 23 of August 2005 17:28, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:06:41PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I vehemently disagree. I think exactly the opposite: debbuild and/or
dpkg-buildpackage should *always* build a package inside a clean and
minimal chroot jail.
** Bastian Blank ::
You have a linux kernel ready, which allows chroot as normal user?
Please share it with us.
It's called QEMU :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:01:24PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
On Tuesday 23 of August 2005 17:28, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:06:41PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I vehemently disagree. I think exactly the opposite: debbuild and/or
dpkg-buildpackage
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:26:25PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:01:24PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Use fakechroot. Yes, it is ugly hack, but it allows me to recompile the
^^^
packages without root privileges.
We all use fakeroot. The question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean
chroots. Why? Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot
will cause the package to fail, there is a bug in some peice of
software. It could
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:04:57PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Not a kernel feature, but see
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/schroot
Does not help, each chroot needs to be setup by root and you need root
priviledges to install packages in it.
Bastian
--
Madness has no purpose. Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:04:57PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Not a kernel feature, but see
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/schroot
Does not help, each chroot needs to be setup by root and you
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:52:22PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** Bastian Blank ::
You have a linux kernel ready, which allows chroot as normal user?
Please share it with us.
It's called QEMU :-)
Or pbuilder-uml, once someone gets onto the user-mode-linunx package
(and
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther wrote:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
Actually, it's better yet if
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to
fail, there is a bug in some
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean
chroots. Why? Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot
will cause the package to fail, there is a bug in some peice of
software. It could
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:04:57PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Not a kernel feature, but see
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/schroot
Does not help, each chroot needs to be setup by root and you need root
priviledges to install packages in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I often do debuild -us -uc -nc outside the chroot till i get the
package to build and then build just source and dump it into the local
buildd to confirm a
Sven Luther wrote:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
Actually, it's better yet if the packages are built on developer machines
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user
from recompiling on his own system, which thusly defeats the point of
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to
fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user from
24 matches
Mail list logo
