[oe] Using bitbake in minimal chroot environment

[Philip Balister]

On 02/14/2010 05:56 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just thinking about using bitbake only in minimalistic chroot.
>
> What are advantages/disadvantages?
>
> How I see it:
>
> Advantages:
> 1) more secure (I started to use separate user for bitbake, when I
>     started to play with bitbake master instead release - because that
>     warning it said), but chroot is even better.
> 2) less problems when autotools pick some header or lib from buildhost
>     instead of staging
> 3) easier to check, that -native package is missing for some important
>     lib
>
> Disadvantages:
> 1) Few more MB for building environment (extra libc, gcc, binutils, git,
>     svn, sh, etc. installed in chroot
> 2) More administrative to keep chroot system updated
> 3) harder to check, that autotools won't pick something from buildhost
>     in normal environment before pushing new version/recipe (ie I won't
>     have SDL libs installed in chroot, but everybody else will and maybe
>     build will fail for them after I push some recipe.

I see this as a good thing :)

Philip


>
> If nobody points some big disadvantage I didn't think about, I'll give
> it a try (with precompilled gentoo stage tarball it's task for half an
> hour using cp :)).
>
> Using some sofisticated sandbox setting (as gentoo ebuilds do) would be
> also good alternative, is someone trying that?
>
> Regards,
>