Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:12:24 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How long for -stable [ Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c ] Message-ID: <85532.970625544@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> of "Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:51:59 CDT." <20001003205159.A20891@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What about ports? How do you propose that they be tested, as opposed > to "it-compiles-so-ship-it" on these 3.x boxes if, say, the developer > in question only runs 4.x boxes, with a single not-yet-built 5.x box > for when 5.x settles down? I think we need to go back to providing dynamically created "sandboxes" again, where the would-be tester can quickly create a minimal (e.g. nothing more than strictly required) chroot tree from scratch, chroot into it and build the port in question so that it and all its deps get properly built and tested. We used to do that back in the "old days" and then stopped, probably because people got worried about root access for chroot and killed sandboxes rather than simply firewalling the heck out of a sacrificial box and moving them there. Anyway, these sandboxes should furthermore live on a 3.x reference box which the project provides (so the developer's not on the hook for it) and is specially selected for having cojones muy grande in the disk and CPU department. I can arrange the hardware, I'm fairly confident of that part. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?85532.970625544>