Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:06:28 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?S2FtaWxhIFNvdcSNa292w6E=?= <kamila@ksp.sk> To: samir.otmane@numericable.fr Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: Barebone kernel options request Message-ID: <CAO7yDHr_y5Ld2R_ve_RK1H7drfDwoqz2k%2B5RD%2Bq7v_VYykmETA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ea-mime-5c865152-1385-5fbeec40@webmail.numericable.fr> References: <20190311080756.6191bb55.freebsd@edvax.de> <ea-mime-5c865152-1385-5fbeec40@webmail.numericable.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> there's things in kernel-land that i'd like to avoid but i've seen no options so far for it. (like as it could be nooptions JAIL) > I'm already aware of kernel configuration file, i'm just asking if one can help to get like that (some kind of patch that would add code like #ifdef JAIL ... #endif). I believe removing jails cannot be done with just the config file and would be a lot of work to do at all. That said, I wouldn't remove them even if I could and didn't need them for isolating services: jails can also be useful for a variety of "unexpected" purposes, such as building ports with poudriere, poking at boot environments, or even playing with linuxulator. On several of my systems, I have zero jails running by default, yet I consider it useful to have them available when the need arises :-) Kamila
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAO7yDHr_y5Ld2R_ve_RK1H7drfDwoqz2k%2B5RD%2Bq7v_VYykmETA>