Re: Introducing chroot tasks

[Claudius Heine <claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com>]

Hi,

On 10/19/2017 12:24 PM, Ben Brenson wrote:
> 2017-10-19 11:15 GMT+02:00 Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>:
> 
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:01:28 +0200
>> "[ext] Claudius Heine" <claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2017 10:38 AM, 'Ben Brenson' via isar-users wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I want to submit some patches for defining and running chroot tasks
>>>> within bitbake recipes.
>>>> The following short example should show what I mean:
>>>>
>>>> Exampe recipe.bb:
>>>>
>>>> do_foo() {
>>>>       # Do something within chroot
>>>> }
>>>> do_foo[chroot] = "1"
>>>> do_foo[id] = "${BUILDCHROOT_ID}"
>>>> addtask do_foo after ... before ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By setting the chroot flag the task automatically will be executed
>>>> within the chroot specified by the id flag.
>>>> My isar (https://github.com/benbrenson/isar) fork already supports
>>>> this feature, by using schroot.
>>>>
>>>> This will give much more flexibility and modularity to Isar. You
>>>> will be able to append/prepend things to those tasks
>>>> between layers easily.
>>>>
>>>> I have already seen, that there is another and better approach than
>>>> schroot -> proot.
>>>> I saw Alexander has already experimented with this feature, which
>>>> seems to work.
>>>>
>>>> So before posting some patches here, maybe changing this feature to
>>>> proot first would a better first-step?
>>>
>>> Yes. Since proot solves some more problems than schroot.
>>>
>>> Your implementation requires patching the bitbake code, so maybe we
>>> should try to get those changes upstream to bitbake?
>>
>> IMHO, touching our copy of bitbake is an absolute NoGo! Such changes
>> need to go upstream first.
 >>
> Yeah I know, but using chroot tasks was never a use case for bitbake and
> maybe will never be, I think.
> I've never thought about using chroot tasks when running Yocto builds, but
> that has changed very fast when switching to Isar.
> So maybe within Isar we have a more reasoned use case for chroot tasks, and
> if this feature works in isar, may be I have more chances to get those
> changes upstream to bitbake?
> 
> I can try to get those changes upstream first....

A version that is independent of the chroot implementation might be more 
useful upstream maybe. Call it a 'execution context' then you can 
specify if a specific task should be run in a chroot environment, in a 
ssh shell. Some repl or a programming language or the serial tty session 
might a bit to much though but maybe possible.

Cheers,
Claudius

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de