[oe] Using bitbake in minimal chroot environment

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/2/15 Philip Balister <philip at balister.org>:
> 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

If they are on the same filesystem you could use hard links and save those MBs.

>> 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?
>>

Seems a good plan to me, please keep us posted.
(actually I've been considering building in a minimalistic VM)

FM