On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:22:58PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (02/02/16 16:59), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (02/02/16 15:35), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 02:18:32PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> ehlo,
>>>
>>> This ticket is little bit related to #2855
>>>
>>> I searched a little bit and here is a small sumary of
>>> using autofs + atomic (containers)
>>>
>>> >We have a pull request in RUNC to eliminate our patch.
>>> >
>>> >https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pull/208
>>> >
>>> >A second feature of this pull request would be to allow us to pass in
>>> >the MOUNT_SHARED flag
>>> >This would allow us to modify the hosts mount table from inside of a
>>> >container. With this feature
>>> >we would be able to run a service like autofs inside of a container but
>>> >have it modify the HOST
>>> >file system and those of other containers.
>>> >
>>> >I think if we want to get autofs to work on "atomic host" we
need to run
>>> >it in a container.
>>>
>>> The attached patch will reduce dependency tree in such container.
>>>
>>> I created patch with separate pacakge because "sss" is not by
default
>>> in nsswithc.conf for "automount". But this file could be part of
sssd-client
>>> but on the other hand automount directly dlopen libsss_autofs.so
>>> I'm not sure which solution would be better.
>>>
>>> LS
>>
>>> From 64db47c3fb09648f84cd359ec8c1cc28a49fd430 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:47:11 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] SPEC: Move libsss_autofs.so outside sssd-common
>>>
>>> It will reduce dependency chain in container world.
>>> libsss_autofs.so depends only on libc and requires
>>> sssd unix sockets. And sssd-common has many requirements.
>>> ---
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>> +%files -n libsss_autofs
>>> +%defattr(-,root,root,-)
>>> +%doc src/sss_client/COPYING src/sss_client/COPYING.LESSER
>>
>>Why do we need COPYING.LESSER? IIRC all our code is only GPLv3+
>>
>>Also, while looking at this patch I realized that with libsss_sudo we
>>call ldconfig even though the library is not supposed to be linked with
>>but dlopened (yes, it's a bug that the sudo library is placed in libdir..)
>looks like no
OK, ACK
CI:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/37/28/summary.html