From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Oct 9 10:29:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from neptune.psn.net (neptune.psn.net [207.211.58.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC115150D7 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@shadow.blackdawn.com) Received: from 5042-243.008.popsite.net ([209.224.140.243] helo=shadow.blackdawn.com) by neptune.psn.net with esmtp (PSN Internet Service 2.12 #3) id 11a0Iy-0007ez-00; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:29:13 -0700 Received: (from will@localhost) by shadow.blackdawn.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20994; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 13:28:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from will) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37FF7288.288EEBF6@scc.nl> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 13:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: Will Andrews From: Will Andrews To: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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? Despite my personal fervor for jail() to be committed to -STABLE (I know Jacques has been working on the backport for awhile), I think it's simply a matter of deciding whether or not the commit would meet the agenda of -STABLE. Since -STABLE must have binary compatability in order to support third-party vendors' binary programs (which were compiled with what is the current suser function), we cannot risk changing the suser() syscall and causing breaks in such vendors' programs. People who really want jail() on their -STABLE machines can, IMO, simply take Jacques' patch and patch it themselves (of course, unless they have the exact same release he's got, they're gonna have rejects all over the place ;). And also, of course, their work would get overwritten when/if they cvsup, but that's their own damn problem. ;) So, I say, leave it out of -STABLE until 4.0-CURRENT becomes -STABLE (probably February-March 2000?). Vendors have plenty of time until then to reimplement their suser()-dependent features. -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message