Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:00:04 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@opsec.eu> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: qjail or qjail2? Message-ID: <20160612170004.GG41922@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <cdaee435-6a3f-d9dc-bfd3-7096d4a14179@gjunka.com> 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> <cdaee435-6a3f-d9dc-bfd3-7096d4a14179@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > 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 Thanks. qjail2 has no maintainer, so I just added it. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160612170004.GG41922>