Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:39:17 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: qjail or qjail2? Message-ID: <20160612163917.GF41922@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <7b5e74b1-4c77-f9e6-056b-d4c91cbf961f@gjunka.com> References: <6d708ff4-de99-bfc5-f2d7-2568fa368256@gjunka.com> <20160612130722.GC41922@home.opsec.eu> <3fe16418-124d-d591-043e-9aad854e7df8@gjunka.com> <575D8358.2070508@gmail.com> <7b5e74b1-4c77-f9e6-056b-d4c91cbf961f@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > It would certainly help if: > - the version of qjail supporting legacy systems was named qjail0 > rather than qjail2 That ship probably has sailed. > - or the version of qjail supporting FreeBSD RELEASE-10.0 was named > qjail3 (or qjail4 since 4 is its minor revision now) > - or/and the message for qjail2 simply stated: > > "This version supports FreeBSD RELEASE 8.x and 9.x. For RELEASE 10.0 and > newer use qjail." Would you please submit a PR that makes this change to pkg-descr or such ? If maintainer agrees, this would clarify it for future generations to come 8-} -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160612163917.GF41922>