/dev nodes in buildroots Re: x86_64 blocks i386?
wtogami at redhat.com
Mon Mar 21 03:06:26 UTC 2005
Warren Togami wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 20:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>>> About the gpgme problem - I have a sneaking suspicion it has
>>> something to do with dev/udev. I think the lack of a lot of items in dev
>>> is maybe affecting the builds. That's something else I'm planning on
>>> looking at. maybe with a bind-mount to /dev on the normal system.
>>> we shall see.
>> I'd highly recommend doing this. It's not a huge stretch as it's what
>> we do in the buildroots for Core builds at this point as well.
(oops, meant to include this paragraph here)
I would highly recommend against using --bind mounts. Extra mounts are
more prone to failure, especially in the case of where you are
recovering from crashes of mach. Instead the below scheme has *never*
failed us before.
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Apr 17 2003 fd ->
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 7 Dec 11 15:49 full
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 Dec 11 15:49 null
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 5, 2 Dec 11 15:49 ptmx
> crw-r--r-- 1 root root 1, 8 Dec 11 15:49 random
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 5, 0 Dec 11 15:49 tty
> crw-r--r-- 1 root root 1, 9 Dec 11 15:49 urandom
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 5 Dec 11 15:49 zero
> Instead I highly recommend creating ONLY these device nodes within
> buildroots. All fedora.us packages have been built with this minimal
> set of nodes for years. This also helps security because disk and many
> other device nodes are kept away from buildroots.
More information about the fedora-extras-list