Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:50:34 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables Message-ID: <bug-218849-8-GpL5anJsWc@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-218849-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-218849-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D218849 erdgeist@erdgeist.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erdgeist@erdgeist.org --- Comment #13 from erdgeist@erdgeist.org --- (In reply to Ngie Cooper from comment #12) Actually, I can not really see a benefit at all in removing that converter = in base. It is not like the OS hands users of jail.conf like files a tool to properly create or modify them. Jamie's rewrite of jail(8) just broke editi= ng jail configs for shell scripts. No big deal, as long as the OS keeps a compatibility until there ARE tools. However, once you start taking these converters away from the base, it need= s to be reimplemented in several ports, possibly leading to errors with each implementation. If there would be a simple jail-admin tool allowing me operate on those com= plex structures from a script, or if there would be something like a jail.d with management scopes, where I'd be sure that configs are not manually touched,= I would happily give up config in shell variables. I also volunteered in getting stuff done, by adding code to jail(8) to exte= nd the parser with config file management functionality, but Jamie used to be = not as reponsive as I would've loved. If there's others wanting to review and possibly commit changes to the tool, I'd say that we go for it. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-218849-8-GpL5anJsWc>