Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:14:07 +0200 From: Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org> To: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD-Jail <freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: New jail(8) committed Message-ID: <4F9B6E8F.8070708@erdgeist.org> In-Reply-To: <4F99AB0E.4090805@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F99AB0E.4090805@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.04.12 22:07, Jamie Gritton wrote: > I've finally put my jail(8) changes into HEAD. This new version of jail > can create jails from a configuration file - see jail.conf(5) for the > format, as well as some additions to jail(8). This doesn't mean you > *have* to use jail.conf, but it's a better way to manage jails than the > existing rc.conf method. Out of curiosity, why did you settle for a /etc/jail.conf instead of a /etc/jail.d/? Your config file format introduces the dependency into an expensive parser while adding little value. Even worse, the user now has to struggle with just another format describing the system. I can foresee that my automated jail management tool ezjail will not be able to support the jail.conf format due to the lack of a parser. A look into ezjails config directory structure can give you a hint of how to achieve some similar clean up with built in tools. I am not saying, the config directory format is perfect, the current redundancy in jail_JAILNAME variables is a mess, but inventing a container format where files would do just fine in my opinion is overkill. Regards, erdgeist
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F9B6E8F.8070708>