https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #23 from Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd_at_quip.cz> --- (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #22) I think it turns in to bikeshed now. Are we talking about rc.conf variables to configure jails or about this as dependency for ezjail? No matter if you have 1 or 5 or 20 jails. The configuration in jail.conf is as simple as in rc.conf, maybe even easier and more flexible. ## rc.conf style jail_enable="YES" jail_list="alpha" jail_exec_start="/bin/sh /etc/rc" jail_exec_stop="/bin/sh /etc/rc.shutdown" jail_devfs_enable="YES" jail_devfs_ruleset="devfsrules_jail" jail_flags="-l -U root" jail_alpha_rootdir="/vol0/jail/alpha" jail_alpha_hostname="alpha.example.com" jail_alpha_ip="10.11.12.13" ## jail.conf style exec.start = "/bin/sh /etc/rc"; exec.stop = "/bin/sh /etc/rc.shutdown"; exec.clean; mount.devfs; devfs_ruleset = 4; exec.jail_user = "root"; path = "/vol0/jail/$name"; exec.consolelog = "/var/log/jail/$name.console"; mount.fstab = "/etc/fstab.$name"; # A typical jail. alpha { host.hostname = "alpha.example.com"; ip4.addr = 10.11.12.13; } But if we are talking about jails management utility, then we have none in base but a lot in ports / packages that does not depend on rc.conf style. We migrated all our jails on all machines from rc.conf to jail.conf the first time I have seen the warning after machine upgrade. It was really easy. I agree removing some feature on dot release can be a problem but I really don't understand why we should maintain two different styles for configuring jails in base. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.Received on Wed Apr 26 2017 - 12:58:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:11 UTC