Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 16:51:21 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: qjail or qjail2? Message-ID: <cdaee435-6a3f-d9dc-bfd3-7096d4a14179@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <20160612163917.GF41922@home.opsec.eu> References: <6d708ff4-de99-bfc5-f2d7-2568fa368256@gjunka.com> <20160612130722.GC41922@home.opsec.eu> <3fe16418-124d-d591-043e-9aad854e7df8@gjunka.com> <575D8358.2070508@gmail.com> <7b5e74b1-4c77-f9e6-056b-d4c91cbf961f@gjunka.com> <20160612163917.GF41922@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/06/2016 16:39, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> It would certainly help if: >> - the version of qjail supporting legacy systems was named qjail0 >> rather than qjail2 > That ship probably has sailed. > >> - or the version of qjail supporting FreeBSD RELEASE-10.0 was named >> qjail3 (or qjail4 since 4 is its minor revision now) >> - or/and the message for qjail2 simply stated: >> >> "This version supports FreeBSD RELEASE 8.x and 9.x. For RELEASE 10.0 and >> newer use qjail." > Would you please submit a PR that makes this change to pkg-descr or such ? > > If maintainer agrees, this would clarify it for future generations to come 8-} > I am not sure how to make a patch, but the change should be small enough to handle manually: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210238
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cdaee435-6a3f-d9dc-bfd3-7096d4a14179>