[gobolinux-devel] Re: Comments on Unmanaged and third party modules

[Jonatan Liljedahl]

Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:37:53 +0200, Jonatan Liljedahl
> <lijon at kymatica.com>  wrote:
> 
>> Jonas Karlsson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:56:54 +0200, Jonatan Liljedahl 
>>> <lijon at kymatica.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonas Karlsson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2006/8/1, Hisham Muhammad <hisham.hm at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> > How about, if using UnionSandbox, mounting /System/Variable to
>>>>>> > ${target}/Resources/Unmanaged/System/Variable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Listing the stuff you want to be in /S/V in the UnmanagedFiles file
>>>>>> should get you the same result.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This was an idea since some programs want to install files into a /var
>>>>> location. If I point it to R/Unmanaged (to have it create the files
>>>>> correctly) the program might want to write to that directory while
>>>>> running.
>>>>> How would one configure a program so it writes to /S/Variable during
>>>>> runtime, but the files get installed into R/Unmanaged?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this exactly what unionfs can solve?
>>>>
>>> Yes, unionsandbox solves this, but should we count (demand) that 
>>> everyone  has unionfs available?
>>
>>
>> It would be best if there where a working solution for fibosandbox
>> too,  but is that possible?
> 
> 
> Yes and no. With the introduction of unmanaged files one can install 
> everything that have to be outside of the programs folder there. If you 
> missed it: in short unmanaged files are installed into 
> /Programs/Foo/x.y/Resources/Unmanaged/[System/Kernel/Modules,/Programs/HTTPD/Current/modules,etc] 
> and are copied to their place in the filesystem at installation. The 
> process is protected by a list specified in 
> /Programs/Foo/x.y/Resources/UnmanagedFiles, which holds which files are 
> allowed to be copied. With unionsandbox this work like a charm with 
> everything written outside the sandbox moved into Unmanaged, but for 
> fibosandbox one have to configure the application to install the files 
> into the above mentioned path, which can cause programs try to use that 
> file during runtime.
> If one knows where the files will be installed (outside of the sandbox) 
> one can create links that points to subdirectories in Unmanaged to
> force  the files there, but that isn't a pretty solution.

I see. Will the files be *copied* from Resources/Unmanaged? That means
they will take up double size on the filesystem... How about:

1) packing them as Resources/Unmanaged.tar.bz2 instead?
2) using an old and mysterious dark voodo thing called hard links? =)

>> I've not followed the development on gobolinux for a couple of months
> 
> Aha, I did wonder where you went. I kind of missed all the discussion 
> about fitting Rox into GoboLinux. :)

I've been deep down in other coding projects (hacking on 'nasal', a
*very* nice scripting language), schoolwork, and moving to Stockholm.
(At last! Broadband!)

But I still want ROX to be a working alternative to KDE for new
gobolinux users. =)

>> so I'm not sure what the current status of fibo vs unionfs are... I 
>> remember we talked about moving to a whole new layout, with programs 
>> thinking that they are installing in /System/Links while they
>> actually  are redirected to /Programs/Name/Version, and that
>> /System/Links would  be renamed to /System/Index and that all the dirs
>> "Executables, Shared,  Libraries, Headers" should be replaced with the
>> "real" names: bin,  shared, lib, include, to exactly mirror the layout
>> underneath the  /Programs...
>>
> I think this was put on ice, due to some more important issues. To be 
> honest, I kind of missed that discussion...

So I guess this is post 013, maybe in 014?

>> What are the problems demanding on unionfs? Isn't unionfs available
>> for  the supported kernels?
>>
> Yes, it is. But until 013 is out and we have a release with unionfs in
> it,  I don't think we should be dependant on unionfs.

But couldn't the unionfs-based Compile system be for 013, those with 012
would use the old version (as broken as it is now...)

>> Ironically, I haven't got the unionsandbox to work on this box, but
>> that    could be because this system is a messy mixture between 011,
>> 012 and  013... =) Could anyone give me a hint on how to try out the 
>> unionsandbox? I don't even remember how to enable it.
>>
> You have to have unionfs support in the kernel. If you have copmiled 
> unionfs as a module, don't forget to load it. :)
> 

Allright, seems to work fine! The only thing is that I get this at the
end: (But this has likely nothing to do with unionsandbox)

...
SignProgram: Creating FileHash
sudo: no passwd entry for root!

-- 
/Jonatan    -=( http://kymatica.com )=-