https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #23 from Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@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.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
