From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JUNAX-00048p-R2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:22:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F1E68E04B9; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bacchus.cwi.nl (bacchus.cwi.nl [192.16.191.9]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C6DE04B9 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (pegasus.ins.cwi.nl [192.16.196.142]) by bacchus.cwi.nl (8.13.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id m1RELwSw012793 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:21:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:21:58 +0100 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SOC 2008 Message-ID: <20080227142158.GB315@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20080227122915.GA315@gentoo.org> <8c8b2d51d5872e1458122e90ff615a36@marples.name> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8c8b2d51d5872e1458122e90ff615a36@marples.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.1) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Archives-Salt: c15ffe46-a39d-416c-84c6-ff6062ce3e09 X-Archives-Hash: 90b9cacb55b126377dc0ebd7a2ebe8a1 On 27-02-2008 13:56:51 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:29:15 +0100, Fabian Groffen > wrote: > > Well... that's great! But a jail or a (ch)root is in general not the > > same as a "prefix". > > No, but it's the same kettle of fish as chroots, jails and vps systems - > basically > there is a need to disable dependencies that provide what the host already > does. Ok, the host will for instance do "net", so "need net" should indeed not fail. However I could imagine that "need net" would just get satisfied or something, like by a dummy. > We current have nojail for FreeBSD jails, novps for VServer/OpenVZ systems > and > a few others. I would be trivial to add another no for prefix :) I just need the machinery of "runscript" as first thing, I suppose. If we need a dozen of no* things for that, it probably indicates some problem, but could work for me. I want a framework to start and stop daemons in Prefix, and it feels obvious that we can reuse existing code for that. > > I have to look more closely at what openrc does > > these days, but for the (ancient) version of baselayout we have in > > prefix now, I recall that: > > a) most of it didn't compile on Darwin and Solaris > > It compiles and works on Linux/glibc/uclibc, FreeBSD-6 and NetBSD-4. > So it stands a fair chance of working on Darwin for sure. Well... I've some experience here, and I'm not as sure as you ;) Anyway, I concur the codebase has changed dramatically since, and probably in favour of portability. > I have no idea about Solaris, but it should work as it sports libkvm which > we use to find processes. Part of the summer of code project to me would be to 1) evaluate to what extent this is all necessary in the Prefix equivalent and 2) create/fix the code. > > And maybe even a sort of init-level stuff, such that one can start all > > services in the Prefix and stop them as well. That basically gets quite > > useful once Prefix goes "privileged" and you could start sshd, slapd, > > apache2, etc, etc. on privileged ports, and you really would like those > > to be started as well in some correct order (on e.g. Solaris). > > If OpenRC compiles and /bin/sh points to a POSIX shell it should work as it > stands. Ok, then we already fail here. /bin/sh is no way POSIX, it is just bourne, so that's where we come in and simply use /usr/bin/env {sh,bash,posix-sh} or a full path to make your assumption true. > At present there is no need for the default interpreter to be changed, but > there may > be the need for Prefix. See above. But that's trivial work, that we do all the time. For the GSoC I see more challenges in the rest of the job and to make some obvious examples. But then again, it was just a mere suggestion. If everything is already there then fine, but we still need someone (Google code or not) to do it, as it's currently not. I'm not sure how far OpenRC actually can deal with unprivileged installs, so that are just things we have to find out along the way. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list