Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:30:26 +0100 From: Philipp Wuensche <cryx-freebsd@h3q.com> To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: r185435 multi-IPv4/v6/no-IP jails in HEAD Message-ID: <49419482.2040502@h3q.com> In-Reply-To: <20081211221113.S97918@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20081201085229.D80401@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20081201122937.81475f0zhfsjya4o@webmail.leidinger.net> <6ae50c2d0812021800x791d2cfeh45d590de120f76df@mail.gmail.com> <1228483574.2805.499.camel@soundwave.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com> <86skp2l804.fsf@ds4.des.no> <1228507529.2805.539.camel@soundwave.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com> <49418BD9.8080105@h3q.com> <20081211221113.S97918@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Philipp Wuensche wrote: > > Hi, > >> Brian A. Seklecki wrote: >>> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 20:47 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >>>> The question is, does it change existing behavior, or just add new >>>> functionality? >>> >>> The syntax semantics should be backward compatible, so likely the >>> latter. >> >> Not entirely true, the jls output is totaly different than before and >> breaks third-party applications like jailaudit and ezjail. > > This is only true if you use any of the new features. In case you use > single-IPv4 jails as before there should be absoultely no change in the > output format. Why do I get the new jls output then when I only use one ipaddr. for a jail and none of the new features at all? > PS: I trimmed the CC: list as noone was able to adhere to Reply-To. freebsd-current should be in the CC as the discussion is if it is MFCd and let loose to 7.2R greetings, Philipp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49419482.2040502>