From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH] daemon: Check for HAVE_CHROOT instead of CHROOT_ENABLED. Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:04:57 -0400 Message-ID: <877fp2pu52.fsf@netris.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZOx43-0007tq-5u for Guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:05:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZOx42-0003mD-8h for Guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:05:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Manolis Ragkousis's message of "Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:15:10 +0300") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Manolis Ragkousis Cc: Guix-devel Manolis Ragkousis writes: > There is an issue with the chrooted builds on Hurd. In > nix/libstore/build.cc CHROOT_ENABLED > is false because HAVE_UNSHARE && HAVE_SYS_MOUNT_H are not defined on Hurd. > > The part that we are interested from build.cc is at line 1768. The > part of the code in that if, is used by the daemon for chrooted > builds. At this specific part of the daemon we only need > HAVE_CHROOT to be defined, which is true on hurd, for the builds to > work. With this workaround, > things seem to work for me until now. WDYT? This won't be sufficient, because if you set up a chroot, you'll also need to do some of the things within the "#if CHROOT_ENABLED" starting on line 1997, such as setting up local instances of /dev and /etc. Here's what I'd suggest: instead of using HAVE_CHROOT on line 1768, instead split CHROOT_ENABLED into two separate flags: CHROOT_ENABLED and maybe CONTAINER_ENABLED. All existing occurrences of CHROOT_ENABLED would initially be replaced with CONTAINER_ENABLED. Then, define CHROOT_ENABLED (now a newly defined name) to depend on a smaller set of requirements, maybe just HAVE_CHROOT && HAVE_SYS_MOUNT_H. We should assume that CHROOT_ENABLED is a requirement for CONTAINER_ENABLED (which should ideally be made explicit in the code by adding CHROOT_ENABLED to the right-hand-side expression for CONTAINER_ENABLED), so there are only three cases to consider: 1. CONTAINER_ENABLED and CHROOT_ENABLED are both true. 2. CONTAINER_ENABLED is false and CHROOT_ENABLED is true. 3. CONTAINER_ENABLED and CHROOT_ENABLED are both false. We should ensure that the code works properly in all three cases. So, look at the code within "#if CONTAINER_ENABLED" and decide which parts should still be run if CONTAINER_ENABLED is false but CHROOT_ENABLED is true. What do you think? Mark