Re: [PATCH] isar-image-base: fix owner and group of /proc

[Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>]

>>>>>>>      meta-isar/recipes-core/images/isar-image-base.bb | 2 +-
>>>>>>>      meta/recipes-devtools/buildchroot/buildchroot.bb | 2 +-
>>>>>>>      2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-isar/recipes-core/images/isar-image-base.bb b/meta-isar/recipes-core/images/isar-image-base.bb
>>>>>>> index c2150b1..a6906c6 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-isar/recipes-core/images/isar-image-base.bb
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-isar/recipes-core/images/isar-image-base.bb
>>>>>>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ do_rootfs() {
>>>>>>>              -e 's|##ISAR_DISTRO_SUITE##|${DEBDISTRONAME}|g' \
>>>>>>>                 "${WORKDIR}/multistrap.conf.in" > "${WORKDIR}/multistrap.conf"
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>> -    [ ! -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/proc ] && install -d -m 555 ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/proc
>>>>>>> +    [ ! -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/proc ] && sudo install -d -o 0 -g 0 -m 555 ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/proc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the requirement for doing so? And what is the benefit?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the resulting image, /proc was created with my build user's ownership
>>>>> != root as it was non-existent. To create the directory belonging to
>>>>> root, sudo is required here...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, got it! But I don't think it's also required for buildchroot.
>>>
>>> Nope, not strictly required but for cosmetics and symmetry reasons I put
>>> it in there as well. Doesn't do harm either..
>>>
>>
>> So I'm going to apply the first part of the patch (related to image) to
>> avoid adding new 'sudo' without real usecase.
> 
> Fine with me.
> 

Applied to next, thanks!