From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 22 00:33:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22F71065672; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@nitro.dk) Received: from emx.nitro.dk (emx.nitro.dk [IPv6:2a01:4f8:120:7384::102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAA48FC08; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailscan.leto.nitro.dk (mailscan.leto.nitro.dk [127.0.1.4]) by emx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065271B1FAE; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from emx.nitro.dk ([127.0.1.2]) by mailscan.leto.nitro.dk (mailscan.leto.nitro.dk [127.0.1.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RmrSsqcNQgxX; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.nitro.dk (webmail.nitro.dk [127.0.1.8]) by emx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB19A1B1FA7; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:38 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:33:38 +0100 From: simon To: Kostik Belousov In-Reply-To: <20120121233757.GB31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4F14F4FF.902@erdgeist.org> <20120120230300.GE87357@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120121233757.GB31224@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon@nitro.dk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/42.7 Cc: Brooks Davis , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bumping a pet bug X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:33:42 -0000 On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:37:57 +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: >> I think in most cases if devfs mount fails you will likely not end >> up >> with a jail where you can do much... rather many things expect >> /dev/null >> etc. >> >> It is possible to just disable the devfs mount completely for a jail >> if >> you want the jail to start up anyway without devfs so I think it >> would >> be OK to simply skip the jail if we cannot mount devfs - and >> complain >> loudly. >> >> Anybody have any cases where this would be a problem? > Just curious. Why devfs mounts can fail ? If $JAIL/dev doesn't exist or if one has messed up the devfs rulset configuration are two reasons I can think of. -- Simon