Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:17:32 -0700 From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh@apache.org> 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 ? Message-ID: <4F26ECCC.6070408@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <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> <20120130175542.GA31505@daniel3.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/30/12 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > 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. Yes, I can see what you mean. I'd tell you that sentence obviously mean something else, but at the moment I'm not sure what I meant when I write that :-). > P.S. What is the timeframe for the jailconf framework to be included in > a release? 9.1, 10.0, ...? Yes, those. I had missed the cutoff for 9.0 (and then waited around until 9.0 was actually released), but I'll be putting in it soon. - Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F26ECCC.6070408>