Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:30:44 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> To: Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <20030409213044.I16782@espresso.bsdmike.org> In-Reply-To: <20030410111953.N72779-100000@hewey.af.speednet.com.au>; from andyf@speednet.com.au on Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:27:08AM %2B1000 References: <200304090304.h3934Csu028105@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030410111953.N72779-100000@hewey.af.speednet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> writes: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > > Log: > > o Add jls(8) for listing active jails. > > o Add jexec(8) to execute a command in an existing jail. > > o Add -j option for killall(1) to kill all processes in a specified > > jail. > > o Add -i option to jail(8) to output jail ID of newly created jail. > > > > What is the reasoning behind adding another utility (jls) rather than > incorporating its function into jail(8)? > > ie. perhaps `jail -l' could list jails. Same reason ipcs(1) and ipcrm(1) are separate utilities. Each utility should do one thing well. But if others want to see these utilities combined, I'm willing to reconsider. Best regards, Mike Barcroft
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030409213044.I16782>