From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 21 20:58:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D459216A420 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:58:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EFC43D6B for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:58:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper [212.12.50.230]) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j8LKwjht023052; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:58:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9/Submit) id j8LKwf8b023050; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:58:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cracauer) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:58:40 -0400 From: Martin Cracauer To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20050921165840.A22924@cons.org> References: <20050919130810.A41848@cons.org> <20050919214239.6f5f40ad@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050919163608.A49288@cons.org> <20050920212322.3e609568@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20050920212322.3e609568@Magellan.Leidinger.net>; from Alexander@Leidinger.net on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 09:23:22PM +0200 Cc: Martin Cracauer , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device entries outside /proc with procfs (for chroot) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:58:52 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 09:23:22PM +0200: > > > It seemes that the controlled procfs mounting is the solution. In my > > case I don't chroot for security reasons, just to get the FreeBSD libs > > and programs out of the way, so I don't even have to secure the second > > mount. > > Yes, multiple devfs mounts are the way to go. Or mount linprocfs... I have but it doesn't give me /dev/null :-) > > What would be your idea of a proper Linux environment? They move > > faster than I can follow :-) > > 8 is the default. If you don't have something which depends upon a > newer one, use the default. I am more concerned about older. The thing is that a binary built on Redhat-7 works on 8, 9 and the Fedora Cores (if those don't have their play-with-the-VM-map day). By bumping it up you lose the ability to crosscompile for Rh-7 and its derivates (RH enterprise Linux, whitebox) which are in wide use in production environments. Of course Redhat-7 had that "interesting" gcc-2.96 which I don't want either so overall I'm happy with a RH-8 base. > A lot of people use rh-9 (OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=rh9 in make.conf), > but the port has some flaws and Trevor doesn't react. RH9/FC1 (same thing) sucks for the crosscompiler because the linker is dead slow. Linking a big C++ library is several times slower than RH7 or FC2, last time I looked (not properly benchmarked). I also bet 45 cookies that moving past RH-9 breaks things for other distributions. > I think I will > claim a maintainer timeout soon (perhaps at the weekend if I get time) > and fix some things (runtime linker path if you want to use the X11 > libs). I don't use it myself, but I haven't heard very bad things about > it. The current one works pretty well and doesn't seem to be a bad compromise overall. Then of course RH8 is among Linuxers known as the worst RH ever, so what do I know? Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/