Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 13:28:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable Message-ID: <XFMail.991009132848.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> In-Reply-To: <37FF7288.288EEBF6@scc.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 <andrews@technologist.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.991009132848.andrews>