From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 30 17:56:09 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE09106566B
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:56:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danielsh@apache.org)
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00F6A8FC15
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 71303 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2012 17:56:08 -0000
Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9)
	by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:56:08 +0000
Received: from localhost (HELO daniel3.local) (127.0.0.1)
	(smtp-auth username danielsh, mechanism plain)
	by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP;
	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:56:07 +0000
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:55:42 +0200
From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh@apache.org>
To: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20120130175542.GA31505@daniel3.local>
References: <4F22D9FD.10502@p6m7g8.com>
	<CAPyT1SE_YQdk0GcweKfEfNHwehJzHqvYpM3fRCYNdoOZD=kP8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120128081919.GA6699@lp-shahaf.local>
	<C9A38D89-97C5-410D-9234-0436423FA0D4@lists.zabbadoz.net>
	<20120128224740.GA1729@daniel3.local>
	<4F26D588.9050709@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F26D588.9050709@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:45:13 +0000
Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, current@FreeBSD.org,
	Matt Mullins <mokomull@gmail.com>,
	"Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@gmail.com>,
	Scott Sanders <Ssanders@taximagic.com>
Subject: Re: jid and jname are numberic by default why? Can we change it ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:56:09 -0000

Jamie Gritton wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:38:16 -0700:
> On 01/28/12 15:47, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >P.S.  As an aside, the provision in projects/jailconf/'s jail(8) that
> >it's not possible for 'jail -r' to remove all jails _unless_ the '*'
> >syntax is used seems unusual to me: I expect 'jail -r foo bar' to remove
> >those two jails regardless of whether any other jails exist.  (Sorry if
> >this has been discussed already -- it's just an issue I ran across while
> >examining the jail(8) man page in Jamie's framework.)
> 
> I think I must have communicated something badly - "jail -r *" is the
> way to remove all jails without specifying them, but if your only jails
> are foo and bar, then "jail -r foo bar" will do the trick.

That sounds absolutely sane; exactly the behaviour I'd expect.

The sentence that led me to think otherwise is the second sentence of this
excerpt from jail.8@r230776:

    An argument of
    .Dq *
    is a wildcard that will operate on all jails.  To prevent errors,
    this is the only way for
    .Fl r
    to remove all jails.

Thanks,

Daniel

P.S.  What is the timeframe for the jailconf framework to be included in
a release?  9.1, 10.0, ...?

> 
> - Jamie