--- Comment #23 from Miroslav Lachman <> ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #22)
I think it turns in to bikeshed now. Are we talking about rc.conf variables to
configure jails or about this as dependency for ezjail?

No matter if you have 1 or 5 or 20 jails. The configuration in jail.conf is as
simple as in rc.conf, maybe even easier and more flexible.

## rc.conf style

jail_exec_start="/bin/sh /etc/rc"
jail_exec_stop="/bin/sh /etc/rc.shutdown"
jail_flags="-l -U root"


## jail.conf style
exec.start = "/bin/sh /etc/rc";
exec.stop  = "/bin/sh /etc/rc.shutdown";
devfs_ruleset  = 4;
exec.jail_user = "root";

path            = "/vol0/jail/$name";
exec.consolelog = "/var/log/jail/$name.console";
mount.fstab     = "/etc/fstab.$name";

# A typical jail.
alpha {
        host.hostname = "";
        ip4.addr =;

But if we are talking about jails management utility, then we have none in base
but a lot in ports / packages that does not depend on rc.conf style.

We migrated all our jails on all machines from rc.conf to jail.conf the first
time I have seen the warning after machine upgrade. It was really easy. 

I agree removing some feature on dot release can be a problem but I really
don't understand why we should maintain two different styles for configuring
jails in base.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to