From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sree Harsha Totakura Subject: Re: /dev/shm inconsistency in chroot Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:44:33 +0100 Message-ID: <52E2A681.2010906@totakura.in> References: <52E16BC1.6050908@totakura.in> <8738kelbfe.fsf@netris.org> <52E23D95.5050307@totakura.in> <52E274DC.6070009@shealevy.com> <87sisdi9qm.fsf@netris.org> Reply-To: sreeharsha@totakura.in Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87sisdi9qm.fsf@netris.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nix-dev-bounces@lists.science.uu.nl Errors-To: nix-dev-bounces@lists.science.uu.nl To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org On 01/24/2014 06:13 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Shea Levy writes: >> > Another option is to mount a devtmpfs there, for systems which support it. devtmpfs may give different devices on each machine and they may hinder our build reproducibility. > The thing is, we don't actually want most of the system's devices to be > in the build environment, do we? These are all impurities. I don't > think we want /dev/sda, for example. Sure, I agree. I propose we start enumerating commonly needed devices and create them. If in future, a package requires access to certain device while building (or during tests) we can include it in our list of created device nodes. Sree