On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:07:00PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:52:05PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > Assume that one has a linux_base port installed and linprocfs is > > mounted. The task is to upgrade the linux_base port. We do: > > - Un-mounting linprocfs; > > - deletting /compat/linux (along /compat/linux/proc); > > - ... > > > > The problem: a short period of time (well, it may be not so short > > accoring to various curcumstances) exists when there _is no_ > > /compat/linux/proc directory and linprocfs _is_ defined at > > /etc/fstab. If something goes wrong when upgrading (system panic, port > > upgrading errors, etc) one can get an unbootable machine. > > > > I think that a linux_base port should: > > - comment the linprocfs definition right after removing > > /compat/linux/proc directory; > > - remove the comment after creating the needed directory. > > > > The comment itself should be a readable and unique one (ie all > > linux_base ports should use the same text). Ex.: > > "#*linux_base autocomment*". > > > > > > Do you have some other ideas? > > Actually, this unmount ... remount situation is pretty evil. For > example, it prevents users from building linux_base in a jail. In > fact I'd like to switch to building packages in jails instead of > chroots on the package cluster, but this is the major reason I can't. Not to mention that the umount isn't always reliable for some reason: the linux_base-8 package build often fails with this: ===> Checking if emulators/linux_base-8 already installed Un-mounting linprocfs... kern.fallback_elf_brand: -1 -> 3 redhat-release-8.0-8.noarch.rpm glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm setup-2.5.20-1.noarch.rpm filesystem-2.1.6-5.noarch.rpm unpacking of archive failed on file /proc: cpio: chown failed - Operation not supported *** Error code 1 Kris
Attachment:
pgpWHXhGGQ6Q1.pgp
Description: PGP signature