linprocfs and linux_base port upgrade

[Kris Kennaway]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:16:58AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> 
> Regarding the question of the OP: changing "ro" to "ro,noauto" has a similar
> effect in the race-case.
> 
> >On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:01:57AM +0800, Mars G. Miro wrote:
> >
> >>> No, it's because it tried and failed to umount linprocfs.  Presumably
> >>> you didnt have linprocfs mounted in your jail, but some packages
> >>
> >>Well mounting/unmounting stuff inside the jail is a pain. I now recall
> >>I had to mount linprocfs from the host to the jail, thus I was able to
> >>build them. Hrm, perhaps its time for jail_<jailname>_linprocfs_enable
> >>(as with devfs inside a jail) ...
> >
> >I think you're missing my point: if you don't have linprocfs mounted,
> >ports like jdk will fail.  If you do have it mounted, ports like
> >linux_base will fail [because they need to umount it and remount it].
> >
> >The latter should be fixed so that you can consistently set up a jail
> >and have it work in both cases.
> 
> Perhaps (completely untested):
> @exec mkdir -p %D/proc || true
> @dirrmtry proc
> @unexec [ ! -d %D/proc ] || echo "+++ Please unmount linprocfs and remove
> %D/proc by hand!"
> and not touching linprocfs at all.
> 
> Kris, would this work on pointyhat?

I don't think so: I posted a log excerpt of what fails when linprocfs
remains mounted (because the umount doesn't work somehow) during the
install.  cpio needs to be told somehow not to try and write into
/proc.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/attachments/20060222/d86b7570/attachment.bin