Re: Introducing chroot tasks

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2017-10-19 11:01, [ext] Claudius Heine 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?
> 
> Isar has currently has no own changes to upstream bitbake and I am not
> in favor of forking bitbake.

I think we should go for the most promising candidate of the chroot
solutions for upstream and, if that fails, fall back to VMs. Whenn all
our forces are joined on this topic now, we should be able to come to an
answer quickly.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux