From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6478179128234213376 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 05:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Brenson To: isar-users Message-Id: <0eeda167-efa1-4eaf-ade5-8d43d09f2c8a@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <3ad4ed89-de76-9a07-c2f5-3abea0583f68@siemens.com> References: <8fe13268-9bfa-4b24-897a-133c9530c188@googlegroups.com> <3ad4ed89-de76-9a07-c2f5-3abea0583f68@siemens.com> Subject: Re: Isar fork MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_19364_708939313.1508328660592" X-Google-Token: ENSJnc8FD2QQ776iIO80 X-Google-IP: 178.27.65.121 X-TUID: CoXa10CrXZv2 ------=_Part_19364_708939313.1508328660592 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_19365_1283339140.1508328660592" ------=_Part_19365_1283339140.1508328660592 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Claudius, I see that you are using schroot. How is your progress on 'sudo' removal? > schroot itself, doesn't solve the 'sudo' problem, but it's very useful for running common tasks when setting up a chroot, like mounting filesystems, setting up binfmt etc. So basically it extends the chroot command itself. I haven't heard of schroot before, but from what I gather it needs a > privileged service to run in the background. > I've never heard about or noticed that schroot needs a privileged service running in the background. Maybe I have to check this. The main cause for introducing the schroot feature, was to have a already implemented framework, when setting up chroots (mostly related to setting up mounts). Since a lot of chroot tasks running in parallel, if searched for a reliable chroot extension. What are your experience with it? Could it be used for all parts that > currently require root privileges? Have you tried it inside a docker > container? > That is what I think the docker container is for solving the 'sudo' problem. Running schroot inside a docker container is now problems and behaves exactly the same, like running it without schroot. Regards, Benedikt ------=_Part_19365_1283339140.1508328660592 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Claudius,

I see that you are using schroot. How is your progress = on 'sudo' removal?
=C2=A0
schroot itself, doesn't solve the = 9;sudo' problem, but it's very useful for running common tasks when= setting up a chroot, like mounting filesystems, setting up binfmt etc.
= So basically it extends the chroot command itself.

I haven't heard of schroot be= fore, but from what I gather it needs a=20
privileged service to run in the background.
=C2=A0
I've never heard about or noticed tha= t schroot needs a=C2=A0 privileged service running in the background. Maybe= I have to check this.
The main cause for introducing the schroot featur= e, was to have a already implemented framework, when setting up chroots (mo= stly related to setting up mounts).
Since a lot of chroot tasks running = in parallel, if searched for a reliable chroot extension.

What are your experience wi= th it? Could it be used for all parts that=20
currently require root privileges? Have you tried it inside a docker=20
container?

That is what I think the docker contai= ner is for solving the 'sudo' problem.
Running schroot in= side a docker container is now problems and behaves exactly the same, like = running it without schroot.

=C2=A0Regards,
Benedikt<= br>
------=_Part_19365_1283339140.1508328660592-- ------=_Part_19364_708939313.1508328660592--