On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 09:10, Johannes Schauer <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> Quoting Chow Loong Jin (2018-05-03 06:27:01) > > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:23:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > [...] > > > Frankly, I don't see the point in writing this kind of software. Sbuild > > > works super well with the overlay backend, and already has throw-able > > > chroots in tmpfs. Adding docker into this doesn't add any new feature, > > > and in some way, is less flexible than the already existing sbuild. > > > > Something that comes to mind is network isolation, which sbuild still > > doesn't seem to have proper support[1] for: > > > > [1] > https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild#Disabling_network_access_for_dpkg-buildpackage > > sbuild cannot have or not have support for network isolation. Network > isolation > is a feature of the backend and not of sbuild. In this case, the default > sbuild > backend (schroot) does not have support for it yet. The bug is even linked > in > the wiki section you quote. > > If you want network isolation today, just pick one of the other backends > that > sbuild supports via autopkgtest (the lxc backend probably supports network > isolation). If you want network isolation with the schroot backend, then > you > have to improve schroot and not sbuild. > > I also think that, if you want a docker builder today, it would be *much* > easier to just add a docker backend to an existing package building > software > like pbuilder or sbuild and thus avoid re-implementing all the "package > building" logic and focus on the docker specific things instead. > > Thanks! > > cheers, josch > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel >
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
