From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 13 07:51:08 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A96C3E
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:51:08 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from terje@elde.net)
Received: from keepquiet.net (keepquiet.net [78.46.162.42])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723A5211B
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:51:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.130.10.194] (cm-84.210.76.250.getinternet.no
 [84.210.76.250])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 (Authenticated sender: terje@elde.net)
 by keepquiet.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33AD22E403;
 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:50:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: sysvipc only for one jail
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Terje Elde <terje@elde.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308121928480.90799@mail.fig.ol.no>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:50:52 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <25DF7BAC-14CC-4481-BAC1-0DBBF0E0D92C@elde.net>
References: <CAO+PfDe3VDRpK9ALrsvwxBcAyejfN85FRvMLU3Q4CKmMgkG3+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130811173341.6d1cb2e7@arsenic> <20130811173630.24ed528c@arsenic>
 <CAO+PfDct3aXrrszdWOOu7KUPaxVKrPvboJJn29ipKUS9pCo+_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308121323550.90799@mail.fig.ol.no>
 <CAO+PfDfunKiUx=2SV678jZqzwWHoVPonUwi_MMyNvSJ_HCiUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308121407470.90799@mail.fig.ol.no>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308121928480.90799@mail.fig.ol.no>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trond_Endrest=F8l?= <Trond.Endrestol@fagskolen.gjovik.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com>, Maciej Suszko <maciej@suszko.eu>,
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:51:08 -0000

On 12. aug. 2013, at 19.46, Trond Endrest=F8l wrote:
> If you start the jail manually using jail(8), then /etc/jail.conf=20
> comes into play, whereas the lines in /etc/rc.conf is used during=20
> automatic startup of the jails when the host is rebooted. The whole=20
> arrangement seems unnecessary redundant, and I truly wish this can be=20=

> merged sooner rather than later.

It *is* unnecessary redundant.

If you're using /etc/rc.conf to define the jails, then start them with:

/etc/rc.d/jail start jailname

That is, if you're mostly using /etc/rc.conf to define the jails, then =
start them manually using that as well?

Problem solved?

Terje