Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:54:01 -0600 From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Subject: Re: jail configuration Message-ID: <523753C9.9070302@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <868uywk6y8.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <8661u2kppt.fsf@nine.des.no> <20130916130543.GA73887@zxy.spb.ru> <86k3igki36.fsf@nine.des.no> <52370AD3.2060909@FreeBSD.org> <868uywk6y8.fsf@nine.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/16/13 11:33, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> Yes, I've let jail startup go for too long - I really meant to put it in >> for 10.0 but the recent slush kind of surprised me (which means I'm just >> not keeping up). After 10 splits off, it's time to just do it. > > How about we just ask agree on a patch, then ask re@? If they're good for it, I am. But if it's to go in for 10, I'd think that update script would need to be a part of it. On the rc script itself, jail(8) has the ability to take multiple jails on the command line and start them all. I'd prefer to go that route rather than looping through the jails in the shell, since it allows for jail's support of dependencies and parallel startup. - Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?523753C9.9070302>