From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:35:50 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] pseudo: remaining issues... In-Reply-To: <20161122212534.GA3529@free.fr> References: <20161122212534.GA3529@free.fr> Message-ID: <20161123093550.43e574f3@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:25:34 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Alternatively, we can revert back to using fakeroot for this release, at > the expense of breaking (already previously broken) setups with SELinux > on the host. I am more and more thinking that this is what we should do. Not only pseudo still has issues, but even once all issues will be fixed, it is a much much more complicated and annoying solution than fakeroot: - It requires additional dependencies (host-sqlite, host-attr) - It requires a complicated setup, with a daemon, that you need to manually start and stop (because the internal pseudo mechanism to start/stop the daemon doesn't work properly) So I really believe we should revert to fakeroot, and investigate what this SELinux problem is exactly. Looking more at the original bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238802, what is the actual problem for us? Why do we care about preserving the SELinux labels of files within the fakeroot environment? We don't support SELinux, and even if we did, most likely the SELinux labels that exist on the host machine would not make sense for the target filesystem. So is the real problem with fakeroot on Fedora related to SELinux? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com