Discussion summary: Mock security

[David Smith]

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 13:54 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > In our case, we're using mock to cross-build RPMs.  Here's how my co-
> > worker Clark Williams <williams at redhat.com> described it a few months
> > ago when he added the chroot command:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 10:09 -0600, Clark Williams wrote: 
> > > When cross-building a root filesystem, you need to bootstrap something
> > > we call a "sysroot", which is essentially a software development
> > > environment for the target system (headers and libraries mostly). The
> > > way we do that is we create an empty "root" and as we build RPMS
> > > (starting with GLIBC), we install the -devel packages into that target
> > > root (the sysroot). Our cross toolchains know how to access the sysroot,
> > > so when you compile hello.c, it gets the correct headers and libraries.
> > > 
> > > To be able to install rpms into the sysroot (which lives in the mock
> > > chroot) I've added a chroot command to my local copy of mock (patch
> > > below).
> 
> FYI, mach (which was the blueprint from which mock was forked) had
> commands like this since the beginning for these reasons.  mock removed
> some functionality to basically only implement the build-one-package
> case.
> 
> Maybe you want to take a look at mach instead if these are the things
> you are doing - mach still has a wider focus than mock and possibly may
> suit you better.
> 
> See http://thomas.apestaart.org/projects/mach/
> 
> Thomas

I've used mach in the past (in fact you and I traded a few emails on it
back in 2003).

We started with mock this time because it seemed (perhaps incorrectly)
that more development effort was focused toward mock and because we had
thoughts of using plague.

Thanks for the reminder.

-- 
David Smith
dsmith at redhat.com
Red Hat, Inc.
http://www.redhat.com
256.217.0141 (direct)
256.837.0057 (fax)