Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:58:40 -0400 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device entries outside /proc with procfs (for chroot) Message-ID: <20050921165840.A22924@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20050920212322.3e609568@Magellan.Leidinger.net>; from Alexander@Leidinger.net on Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 09:23:22PM %2B0200 References: <20050919130810.A41848@cons.org> <20050919214239.6f5f40ad@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050919163608.A49288@cons.org> <20050920212322.3e609568@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050921165840.A22924>