proot-me / proot-static-build Goto Github PK

Hi,

I tried to follow the README in order to build a slackware rootfs for x86_64 (taken from http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware64-14.1).

Unfortunately, the last command looks that it did not worked:

# Install all package correcty (ignore warnings): 
ls packages/mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware64-14.1/slackware64/*/*.t?z | xargs -n 1 proot -S rootfs -b packages/mirrors.slackware.com /sbin/installpkg

I have got the following errors:

Cannot install packages/mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware64-14.1/slackware64/tcl/tix-8.4.3-x86_64-3.txz:  file does not end in .tgz, .tbz, .tlz, or .txz
/sbin/installpkg: line 115: tar: command not found
WARNING: pkgtools are unstable with tar > 1.13.
     You should provide a "tar-1.13" in your $PATH.
/sbin/installpkg: line 124: sleep: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 73: cut: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 88: basename: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 328: dirname: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 73: cut: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 88: basename: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 163: cut: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 163: cut: command not found
/sbin/installpkg: line 333: basename: command not found

I am wondering if there is an easier way to produce an environment for compiling a static proot.

I also tried to compile it directly via my linux distro (ArchLinux) but without any success.

Any help?

Thanks

Hello,

First thank you for this great tool. Then, I was wondering if it would not be useful to update the binaries here, since they did not change in the last 3 years, while the upstream code changed quite recently again.

Thank you again!

Hi guys,

I would like to raise some concerns about the direction that this repo is getting so far.
In particular, there are three issues that I could see here.

Keep it simple

Lately, I have seen few changes about this repo that attempt to introduce docker as a way to build the static proot executable.

I believe that the goal of this repo is quite different indeed. This repo should only contains a makefile and it is up to the user to decide which backend for the provisioning of machines needs to be used.

If you really want to have docker, I suggest to use a different repo for such purpose a leave this repo as simple as possible in order to be easily consumed by anyone.

Also, CARE is a completely different project and, IMHO it should be placed in a different repo in order to facilitate the maintenance of it.

Repo size

Another concern is about the fact that this repo is too big now (480MB) because of all the binary files in it:

vagrant@slackware64-14:~$ git clone https://github.com/fsquillace/proot-static-build.git proot-static-build
Cloning into 'proot-static-build'...
remote: Counting objects: 280, done.
remote: Total 280 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 280
Receiving objects: 100% (280/280), 480.75 MiB | 1.93 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (129/129), done.
Checking connectivity... done.
Checking out files: 100% (23/23), done.

I think that all the binary files should go away from this repo.

Dynamically points to different PRoot code

The current makefile contains an hardcoded version of the PRoot code. I think that the user needs to decide which proot code need to be statically linked.

Solution

I have built my version of such repo which contains only a makefile and addressed all the issue previously mentioned.

If you believe on such approach, I would like to contribute on proot
project in order to build the new proot-static-build from scratch in proot-me organization.
My second goal would be to build a new repo that statically build proot via
Vagrant. Vagrant suits much better for this purpose compared to Docker as it
allows to have the provisioning of machines on different architectures (i686 and ARM).

WDYT guys?