Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:43:37 +0300 From: Sulev-Madis Silber <freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.pri.ee> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: should FreeBSD-dhclient depend on FreeBSD-resolvconf? Message-ID: <43B04C0C-E5D4-4A21-8340-FD800FA5B0BB@ketas.si.pri.ee> In-Reply-To: <1dab51ef73837d98d5b5c36ef1e39118@bsdforge.com> References: <324231230.147694.1760527890049@localhost> <aO-QglIdge2VetmF@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <1dab51ef73837d98d5b5c36ef1e39118@bsdforge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On October 16, 2025 1:29:51 AM GMT+03:00, Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge=2Ecom>= wrote: >On 2025-10-15 05:16, Lexi Winter wrote: >> Ronald Klop wrote in <324231230=2E147694=2E1760527890049@localhost>: >>> Yesterday I installed a 15-BETA1 jail using pkgbase >>> FreeBSD-set-minimal-jail=2E I was missing FreeBSD-dhclient which is >>> fine and I installed it=2E Then it didn't have DNS as FreeBSD-resolvco= nf >>> was missing=2E I understand that theoretically dhclient can operate >>> without resolvconf, but in practice they seem pretty useful together= =2E >>>=20 >>> Should FreeBSD-dhclient depend on FreeBSD-resolvconf? >>=20 >> dhclient should depend on resolvconf and i will fix this=2E >>=20 >> i am curious how widespread dhclient use in jails is=2E should we add >> dhclient to set-minimal-jail? >>=20 >> NB, "set-minimal-jail" is not intended to be the smallest possible set >> of packages for a jail; it's meant to be "minimal" (the basic base syst= em) >> for jails=2E > > >> so if dhclient use in jails is widespread, we should probably >> add it to minimal-jail=2E >IMHO isn't the HOST responsible for routing? Doesn't that make dhclient >and friends somewhat unusual (not average jail(8) setup?)=2E > in jail, host does all the routing anyway, it's within same kernel but one might need isolated virtual networks since admins are humans, they might need a way to make this appear sane an= d understandable=2E unfortunately this needs dhcpd, dhclient, rtadvd, rtsol= d, ra in same host it all makes things bit more bloaty=2E or a lot=2E but you get it more ea= sily i don't know how this could be changed to kernel doesn't need to do networ= king with itself which is wtf but virtual networking is a think=2E vale switches, epairs+bridges=2E in f= act whole vm is technological wtf but it's so handy i don't have solution to this, how to make it technically better but still= understandable to humans=2E all i could think is just run dhclient and swa= p that meg of ram out or so if needed this doesn't matter here too=2E dhclient works in jail=2E it has legit use= =2E so if minimal jail is a set of all packages that work in jail=2E let it= all be in on naming, i don't have opinion here=2E i never confuse things=2E others m= ight=2E but then, minimal needs change? unfortuntely you don't do changes l= ike this=2E minimal set is already advertised and this will bite users who = already use it tho, i admit i misread it at first too=2E because i take minimal as reduce= d fbsd=2E i build my own embedded dists, i call them min or minimal, becaus= e i took things away from fbsd base and minimized it but at it, if it's minimal working fbsd, unsure=2E besides there's no conf= usion where it comes from, if from project, then all know
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B04C0C-E5D4-4A21-8340-FD800FA5B0BB>