Scripts and tools: Add sudoers.d, rc.local from docs to gitian script #16138

pull JeremyRand wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from JeremyRand:gitian-automated-sudoers-br0 changing 1 files +15 −0

JeremyRand commented at 5:42 PM on June 3, 2019: contributor

The docs at https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs/blob/master/gitian-building/gitian-building-setup-gitian-debian.md instruct to create a sudoers.d entry and an rc.local script. This PR brings gitian-build.py in line with those instructions. Without this PR, running gitian-build.py from a stock Debian Buster VM fails due to the missing br0, and also prompts for sudo permissions frequently due to the missing sudoers.d entry.

Note that this PR (and the existing instructions on which it is based) are suboptimal, as they will clobber an existing rc.local if one exists. I'm open to suggestions on improving this (maybe putting it in /etc/init.d/ instead?), though I think that if an improvement is made, it should be applied both to the English instructions and the automated script in order to keep them consistent.

Add sudoers.d, rc.local from docs to gitian script

The docs at
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs/blob/master/gitian-building/gitian-building-setup-gitian-debian.md
instruct to create a sudoers.d entry and an rc.local script.  This commit
brings gitian-build.py in line with those instructions.

eb02c9fcea

fanquake added the label Scripts and tools on Jun 3, 2019
JeremyRand renamed this:
~~Add sudoers.d, rc.local from docs to gitian script~~
Scripts and tools: Add sudoers.d, rc.local from docs to gitian script
on Jun 3, 2019
hebasto commented at 6:44 PM on June 3, 2019: member

This PR makes gitian-build.py more Debian/Ubuntu specific. I'd rather move in the opposite direction -- to a distro-agnostic script.
JeremyRand commented at 7:04 PM on June 3, 2019: contributor

This PR makes gitian-build.py more Debian/Ubuntu specific. I'd rather move in the opposite direction -- to a distro-agnostic script. @hebasto I'd have no objection to this in principle, although the existing script is definitely specific to Debian/Ubuntu-style distros as-is (e.g. it uses apt-get). Even if the script is modified to support other distros, I don't think it should be made less useful for Debian/Ubuntu (i.e. I'd have no objection to only doing Debian/Ubuntu-specific stuff on those distros, but I think automating as much as possible on Debian/Ubuntu is a feature, not a bug).
laanwj commented at 1:40 PM on June 5, 2019: member

I'd prefer for a script like this to not make system-wide permanent changes. I guess it could tell the user to do so if it is needed, but adding something to suders automatically feels almost like adding a backdoor :laughing:
MarcoFalke commented at 3:22 PM on June 6, 2019: member

Agree on that. On the same note we should remove the apt-get install calls and instead tell the user that those are a requirement
fanquake commented at 6:22 AM on August 4, 2019: member

Going to close this, as the consensus seems to be that we don't want to add these calls.

An alternative PR could remove the apt-get calls and add requirements to the docs.
fanquake closed this on Aug 4, 2019
DrahtBot locked this on Dec 16, 2021

Contributors

Labels