New jail(8) committed
jamie at FreeBSD.org
Sat Apr 28 14:38:37 UTC 2012
The main reason I didn't consider a jail.d approach is just that I
haven't - such things are a little off the radar for me. It seemed very
natural to use a configuration file format that other programs already
use (e.g. named, apmd, devd). I suppose it's true that the "foo.d"
approach is also in use by other programs, though I mostly seem to see
those on Linux. And if I did opt for a directory approach, the files
within the directory would still need a format - you can't get away from
the fact that a config file needs a format.
It would be nice to have a general parser for C-style config files, and
I looked for such a library when I started on this. But such a library
doesn't seem to exist.Perhaps it's time to make one.
On 04/27/12 22:14, Dirk Engling wrote:
> On 26.04.12 22:07, Jamie Gritton wrote:
>> I've finally put my jail(8) changes into HEAD. This new version of jail
>> can create jails from a configuration file - see jail.conf(5) for the
>> format, as well as some additions to jail(8). This doesn't mean you
>> *have* to use jail.conf, but it's a better way to manage jails than the
>> existing rc.conf method.
> Out of curiosity, why did you settle for a /etc/jail.conf instead of a
> /etc/jail.d/? Your config file format introduces the dependency into an
> expensive parser while adding little value. Even worse, the user now has
> to struggle with just another format describing the system.
> I can foresee that my automated jail management tool ezjail will not be
> able to support the jail.conf format due to the lack of a parser. A look
> into ezjails config directory structure can give you a hint of how to
> achieve some similar clean up with built in tools.
> I am not saying, the config directory format is perfect, the current
> redundancy in jail_JAILNAME variables is a mess, but inventing a
> container format where files would do just fine in my opinion is overkill.
More information about the freebsd-jail