From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: bug#21410: Environment containers Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:25:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87y4epsnjs.fsf@T420.taylan> <87r3kgwpb8.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvv3832q.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv0v6l6v.fsf@gnu.org> <87eggda36z.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrspq-0007WR-0F for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:26:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrspl-0005DH-Uw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:26:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrspl-0005DD-Qo for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:26:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrspl-0007Yd-KE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:26:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87eggda36z.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel , 21410@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Vong On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > "Thompson, David" skribis: > >> I think it is /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone, but I don't >> know what the contents are exactly. 0 when off, 1 when on? Can >> someone on Debian confirm? >> >> If we can get the test suite passing, I'd like to extract these user >> namespace presence tests to a procedure that 'guix environment' can >> use to give the user an informative error message in these cases. > > That would be perfect. > > The test machinery would still need to test them explicitly, though, to > mark tests as skipped instead of failed. Yes, of course. I have no intention of removing those checks from the test= s. - Dave