The future of portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:37:16 +0300
abi <abi at abinet.ru> wrote:

> 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot <baho-utot at columbus.rr.com> wrote
> >
> >> On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote:
> >>> On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >>>>> Baho Utot <baho-utot at columbus.rr.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote:
> >>>>>>> I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that can
> >>>>>>> help me to make portmaster an actively maintained and used tool.
> >>>>>> If you can have it build in a clean chroot or jail then you'll get my
> >>>>>> attention
> >>>>> What kind of special support?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I use it with a chroot that mounts /usr/ports (and src) read-only, and
> >>>>> aside from the initial base system install, it took about fifteen
> >>>>> minutes to set up.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Using chroot or jails to build each individual package
> >>>> [...]
> >>> While I understand the interest in chroot/jails as an optional
> >>> feature, I hope it doesn't become required.  The current non-use
> >>> of chroot/jails is, for me, a feature -- not a bug.    -- George
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Having built and packaged linux from scratch using the rpm package
> >> manager, I came to find that if one is building packages to be used on
> >> multiple machines, one needs to build each package in a chroot
> >> environment or the package could inherit things from the parent not
> >> found in the target machine.  Here by making the package unusable.
> > Hello. You shouldn't have any difficulty accomplishing your goal
> > by simply setting up a jail, and using portmaster within that jail(8).
> > portmaster really doesn't care where it's run. So long as it has
> > everything it needs to accomplish it's job(s). :-)
> >
>  From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and 
> it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment.

Just dropping privileges to a dedicated user for building would be a big step, but that's more a port feature (openbsd's ports do that, if I'm not wrong).



-- 
Matthieu Volat <mazhe at alkumuna.eu>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20170217/9e5b385b/attachment.sig>