From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Oct 9 10: 6:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.scc.nl (node1374.a2000.nl [62.108.19.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C760514C83 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@scc.nl) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.scc.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA69608 for stable@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:51:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@scc.nl) Received: from GATEWAY by dwarf.hq.scc.nl with netnews for stable@FreeBSD.org (stable@FreeBSD.org) To: stable@FreeBSD.org Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 18:51:20 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <37FF7288.288EEBF6@scc.nl> Organization: SCC vof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <19991009100231S.nectar@nectar.com>, <19991009160651.314441D87@bone.nectar.com> Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jacques Vidrine wrote: > > [[ replying to your own message is fun ]] > = Don't change suser, but bring in the rest of the changes needed > for jail (add suser_xxx and update the 16 or so files that need > the new semantics). This means that suser in -STABLE and -CURRENT > are still different (as it is today), but it puts of breaking > binary compatibility until 4.0-RELEASE. > > This didn't occur to me earlier, mostly because I would like > the suser from -CURRENT to be merged into -STABLE. Strictly > speaking, this isn't necessary to support jail. To approach this from a different angle: How long will 3.x be -stable and can we afford to wait that long for jail to be a -stable feature? -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message