IRC Logs for #crux-devel Wednesday, 2014-02-26

*** _mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel03:51
*** Romster has joined #crux-devel09:05
*** jue has joined #crux-devel09:21
*** jue has quit IRC09:55
*** jue has joined #crux-devel09:55
*** jue has quit IRC11:31
*** jue has joined #crux-devel11:32
*** jue_ has joined #crux-devel12:02
*** jue has quit IRC12:04
*** _mavrick61 has quit IRC15:52
*** _mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel15:54
juejaeger: rp-pppoe should work now with 3.116:42
jaegerjue: I see your commit, nice find17:03
jaegerthanks, will test it17:03
jaegerwell, the build at least :D17:03
jaegerA 3.1 ISO builds pretty smoothly, just have to update footprint for p5-xml-parser now that rp-pppoe is fixed17:25
teK_jue: I was rather busy doing exams and stuff.. so I guess the best thing is to pull jeager's changes and lobby for a 3.1.1 or 3.2 or some other minor release iff that gets accepted. I guess.18:06
jaegerteK_: are you referring to the cryptsetup stuff? If you want to get it into 3.1, what would it take?18:08
teK_yes I am18:08
jaegerI have only a little experience with cryptsetup on my ubuntu workstation, haven't really delved into it18:08
jaegerWould you be wanting to use it for an encrypted /, or encrypted home dirs, or something else?18:10
teK_encrypted /home can be done rather easily18:11
teK_i.e. include kernel support + cryptsetup.static in the ISO18:11
teK_I'd aim for full disk encryption18:11
teK_I checked the wiki page that I made for (2.4)18:11
teK_the issues have to be rechecked against the current ISO / kernel18:12
teK_I listed four that did not read too serious18:12
teK_the second part of the story is to polish my diff to make it work with the current Makefile from iso.git18:13
teK_nothing too serious either18:13
teK_I began working on this some two weeks ago18:13
teK_tbh: biggest hinderance was getting the vanilla ISO built18:13
teK_I took that one ;)18:13
teK_I wanted to look into it tonight (i.e. NOW) either way so give me 1-2 hours for an estimate18:14
jaegerfair enough. If you need any help from me on building or whatever, feel free to ask18:23
jaegerno problem18:24
teK_btw frinnst: =======> Building '/usr/ports/packages/virtualbox-bin#4.3.8-92456-1.pkg.tar.gz' succeeded.18:26
jaegerI'm about to go meet a friend for lunch, will be back in an hourish18:27
teK_bon appetit18:27
jaegeroh, also let me know if there's something I should make clearer about the ISO build process since that was the biggest hindrance18:28
jaegerI should write up a current doc on that, the wiki one is likely outdated18:28
*** __mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel19:41
*** _mavrick61 has quit IRC19:47
*** jue_ has joined #crux-devel20:01
*** Amnesia has joined #crux-devel20:05
*** jaeger has joined #crux-devel20:05
*** irclogger_ has quit IRC20:12
*** irclogger__ has joined #crux-devel20:12
jaegerI don't need chroot specifically but I was looking at all the options. Docker is certainly an option but I already have experience and scripts for vagrant setups due to work, so that's where I'm leaning currently20:15
jaegerFor all the crux testing and builds at home I use snapshotted VMs in an ESXi server anyway so no chrooting there20:15
prologicfair enough20:16
prologicI just think it could help to speed up and streamline testing and building20:16
prologicit seems to fit really well with the CRUX way :)20:16
jaegerTo be honest all of these tools can accomplish the same result, just a matter of figuring out which is the easiest to automate fully20:16
prologicI _am_ going to build a CI based on Docker20:17
prologicfor building and testing CRUX ports20:17
jaegerBecause if it's for CI I don't want to touch it unless I have to20:17
prologicperhaps I'll build a little prototype20:18
prologicand you can maybe try it out or see some screencast/video :)20:18
prologicgotta run - bus20:18
teK_rebuilding gcc20:23
teK_I forgot the dmcrypt pwd of the already encrypted 3.1 installation20:24
teK_so I gotta start over20:24
teK_turns out I managed to generate a .tar.gz pkg of gcc instead of a .xz one  ;)20:25
teK_now: too lazy to convert it, instead: rebuilding20:25
*** pitillo has joined #crux-devel20:32
*** Amnesia has quit IRC21:23
*** Amnesia has joined #crux-devel21:23
*** jaeger has quit IRC21:35
*** jaeger has joined #crux-devel21:35
*** deus_ex has joined #crux-devel23:09
*** deus_ex1 has joined #crux-devel23:34
*** deus_ex has quit IRC23:34
teK_a quickie:23:53
teK_so things seem to be working, BUT23:53
teK_so I boot into an initrd strangely similar to the one from our ISO23:53
teK_after luksOpening the root partition and mounting it + switch_root  I recieive:23:54
teK_Scanning for Btrfs filesystems23:54
teK_/dev/sda2 is in use23:54
teK_e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting23:54
teK_my question is:23:54
jaeger"strangely similar"? what does that mean?23:54
teK_how can this work in our usual use case23:54
teK_this means that I ripped it off for the greater part :P23:55
jaegerSo what's on sda2? why is it in use?23:55
teK_this is /23:55
teK_now I see..23:55
teK_sda2 is the LUKS_CRYPT partition (for /)23:55
teK_basically it's not supposed to show up in /etc/fstab at all, I guess23:56
teK_so it's just natural that fsck will whine about this. checking fstab.23:56
jaegermakes sense23:57
teK_even though it's late and I'm tired as hell: Yes it does23:57
teK_don't laught at me, timezone cheater23:57
teK_Changing /dev/sda2 to /dev/mapper/root did it23:58
teK_there are only three 'issues'23:59
teK_I use rather old binaries in my initrd port23:59
teK_i) busybox23:59
teK_ii) cryptsetup23:59
teK_-> should be fixable ;)23:59

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!