blob: 431e9dd62dca5c3edffda68c48d4e1b8c26bbdf5 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 16:07, Thierry Vignaud <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thierry.vignaud@gmail.com">thierry.vignaud@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan <<a href="mailto:pterjan@gmail.com">pterjan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Well unionfs seemed to get different oops in each new version. Anyway<br>
> I don't think it should be done like this (having specific code for<br>
> unionfs everywhere).<br>
> I want to improve current chroot mode (like using a cgroup to easily<br>
> kill all processes or set limits) and have a common api to allow other<br>
> modes, like building in kvm for example, or using lvm/btrfs rw<br>
> snapshots (which should be better supported than unionfs).<br>
<br>
Then, we could maybe clean this in Chroot.pm:<br>
<br>
sub add_local_user {<br>
my ($chroot_tmp, $run, $config, $luser, $uid) = @_;<br>
<br>
# change the builder user to the local user id<br>
# FIXME it seems that unionfs does not handle well the change of the<br>
# uid of files<br>
# if (system(qq|sudo chroot $chroot_tmp usermod -u $run->{uid} builder|)) {<br>
<br>
Though sadly we lost the actual commit that did that due to the 2007 crash<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Yes I noticed but this is a behavior change so I wanted to check more closely before doing it, if nothing relies on it</div>
|
