From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Nov 15 17:48:31 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19415C437C9 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:48:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luzar722@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1128EC2 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:48:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luzar722@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c20so163642636itb.0 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l0XF7GC5L2hhpFhoztEOPe6BNpJFHLfxCIjeTC3/DKs=; b=nDzqe8vebT480h+VJ1/5SUDJqp27BeAakd/WypHH9dUT/SItWrNU3M2r6fqCjeJCDB KqikbiOn0gs6M+2rsDaH7j/45x3BP/Vki/rs2kAmtdS2DKUIigRAlEsoVSKWt4FkLcvK N8YaYfgOjMiOZW3z3fkil1fODocewzG2VLQva/PJoHXaEM4vSXk8quEXpXr+KQdzQRrv EhHS60QxpVUdgHWAAo8jSgjqDyyK02gxqDIgjOisEwz8wZlYJt7NPqwp6e1cX7ZA66o+ Ny8BjN92MyXfWiaibe2O8eBMulJAEE8s4pYJRAl5UUaptuuMYIVBTVBbAYyVxt3S84ll qSBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l0XF7GC5L2hhpFhoztEOPe6BNpJFHLfxCIjeTC3/DKs=; b=JL70//ZW96rNIYm53Co41RykSSG/ul9aZPsFTfDybIgiZvZaH++VOYzx0Xh0zYCAW7 exG/v6uYTGItMlpRFCPW4uJGPB86p4Z9zO4jWrWznfrseoHX8VezH167aObEYs9HlEmt AMzTuapOKkY7FY/5V80aJIe+oiiYHHAO2VCFXreUOOX4/yY317C460NGTm+zmdwW3keg tCU022o0xx/l9zx65LLYpw9N2R9HAlvoB7da18/+yWSugFotKXhD6zKi+N1xLE5AZ3ux qfopg+ne0OZ5XwxNFp3p3bsU7uQzVSGxzja75ByqrpCORkdC9zCux7CY0Vkd8JuBXB6V utsA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcU9JBe9sgzzLSq+SKy5dGdolzPset04dsnAq95dctZZKPtIqjbLLiAOe9qkGo2IQ== X-Received: by 10.36.237.193 with SMTP id r184mr4176667ith.4.1479232110301; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.10.3] (cpe-24-165-207-226.neo.res.rr.com. [24.165.207.226]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x63sm11738876iod.5.2016.11.15.09.48.29 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:48:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <582B4A75.9030806@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:48:37 -0500 From: Ernie Luzar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DTD CC: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ezjail problem References: <582A02DC.2020100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:48:31 -0000 DTD wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Ernie Luzar wrote: > >> doug wrote: >>> I am using ezjail-3.4.2. Changing the jail dir as defined by >>> ezjail_jaildir in /usr/local/etc/ezjail.conf does not work. Install >>> does not honor this change. This is easy enough to get around with a >>> symlink. Am I missing something here? >>> >>> There is no option to construct the base jail without a buildworld >>> having been done. Is there a technical reason for this? >>> >>> Thanks as always for any thought. >>> >>> DougD >>> >> >> If I read your post correctly, you want to change the default >> directory location for basejail. IIRC ezjail has a default config file >> where you can change the default basejail location. First change this >> file and then issue the install option to generate the basejail from >> the RELEASE version that matches what your running on the host. >> >> If that is not what you are trying to do then you have to post a >> better description of what your trying to do. > > Mistake was all mine. I had a dumb error in changing ezjail.conf. Thanks. > > My other question remains. Does having the jail have (potentially) a > different userland than the host provide some functionality? I have > always assumed the entire system needed to be updated at the same time. > In any case the userland can/should not be a different release. > > The ezjail basejail should contain the same RELEASE level as the host. But will still work if sub-release is different between host and basejail. The individual jails just contain the ports you have installed and can be kept and used across sub-releases [ie; 10.0, 10.1, 10.3] but when crossing a major release such as going from 9.x to 10.x or 10.x to 11.x ports need to be updated in the individual jails or recreate the jail and populate with desired ports. I use qjail and find it more user friendly.