From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 30 19:18:09 2012 Return-Path: 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 30EEF106566B for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:18:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org) Received: from m2.gritton.org (gritton.org [64.34.175.71]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DF98FC14 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from guppy.corp.verio.net (fw.oremut02.us.wh.verio.net [198.65.168.24]) (authenticated bits=0) by m2.gritton.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0UJHctV054358; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:17:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jamie@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4F26ECCC.6070408@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:17:32 -0700 From: Jamie Gritton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120126 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Shahaf References: <4F22D9FD.10502@p6m7g8.com> <20120128081919.GA6699@lp-shahaf.local> <20120128224740.GA1729@daniel3.local> <4F26D588.9050709@FreeBSD.org> <20120130175542.GA31505@daniel3.local> In-Reply-To: <20120130175542.GA31505@daniel3.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , current@FreeBSD.org, Matt Mullins , "Philip M. Gollucci" , Scott Sanders 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:18:09 -0000 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