[oe] Using bitbake in minimal chroot environment

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/2/15 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 05:59:39PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> >> I'm just thinking about using bitbake only in minimalistic chroot.
>
> Already rebuilding in new 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.
>
> Not so big problem for me, so I used mount --bind for dirs I want to
> share (ie /usr/portage as I'm using gentoo) and it took only about
> 100MB.. so not a big deal
>
>> >> 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 :)
>
> The last point? Well it's good for me (less issues) but if I push some
> recipe failing for 99% other builders just because they have pretty
> standard libs on their systems, then I should be blamed for pushing
> crappy recipe :).
>
>> Seems a good plan to me, please keep us posted.
>> (actually I've been considering building in a minimalistic VM)
>
> Well VM would be much slower..

Someone else told me the same today.
What exactly causes this? I would expect I/O to be the differentiating
factor as memory access and executing instructions should take the
same time, shouldn't it?
>
> If someone is interested in that chroot I can push tar.bz2 somewhere..
> but I guess that it's not needed (as it's only slightly stripped stage3
> gentoo tarball).
>
> Additional apps built (qemu-kvm just because I have ASSUME_PROVIDED for
> that as there is mmap issue fixed in that newer version)
>
> qemu-kvm diffstat texi2html cvs screen subversion git bitbake
>
> /etc/make.conf and chrootOE.sh I'm using in attachement

Thanks, will have a look at it!

Frans
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> uin:136542059                jid:Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
> Jansa Martin                 sip:jamasip at voip.wengo.fr
> JaMa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
>