Bug#354344: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#354344: Fix in 354344 breaks plain chroots

[Roger Leigh]

"Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins at videotron.ca> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:10:46PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins at videotron.ca> writes:
>
>> Because the automatic mounting is being used by a few people, and it
>> is a convenient way to do things, I'm going to introduce a new chroot
>> type which will be "plain+mounts".
>
> Doesn't that leave you open to someone requesting both "file" and
> "file+mounts" chroot types?

No.  "plain" is special, since it's just a plain directory in the
filesystem.  All the other types involve some element of
mounting/copying/unpacking and the mounting is part of the chroot
setup (if enabled with run-setup-scripts).  "plain" defaults to /not/
running the setup scripts, where the other types all run them by
default.

> At the risk of displaying my ignorance of schroot: I'm having a hard
> time understanding why automatic mounting is deemed always useful for
> "non-plain" chroots and (currently) deemed not useful for "plain"
> chroots.  As I understand it, the chroot type describes the source of
> the chroot filesystem.  To me, that seems orthogonal to the question
> of whether you want "/home" mounted.

That's a good point.  In addition to my comment above, there are some
additional points:

- Currently, having run-setup-scripts=true runs all the scripts.
  There's no way to skip the /home mounting script, or indeed any
  other script.  It would be nice to be able to customise which
  scripts are run (or have an effect, at least) on a per-chroot basis.

- "plain" is supposed to be plain.  It's the default because it's used
  to be compatible with dchroot(1), dchroot-dsa(1) and chroot(8).  It
  doesn't do anything fancy for that reason.

I think I'll create a "directory" chroot type; this will be similar to
plain, but will enable all the features plain lacks in comparision
with the other chroot types.

> So: rather than a new chroot type, why not introduce a new option, say
> "auto-mount", for this?  Personally, I'd default it to true; but
> you're the boss.

The main reason not to do this is for compatiblity with other tools,
and to do the least surprising thing.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=329403
is an example of why it defaults to being conservative.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20060705/73df0f79/attachment.pgp