Unsupported property: base

[timewasted]

First, the basics:

root@~ # uname -ro
FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p15

root@~ # iocell version
iocell (2016-12-16)

root@~ # iocell list
JID     UUID                     BOOT     STATE     TAG          TYPE      IP4  RELEASE
-       <snip for brevity>       off      down      base-system  basejail  -    10.3-RELEASE

As you can see, I successfully created a basejail which I was going to use as a base for a new jail. Following the examples in the man-page, I ran (and received) the following:

root@~ # iocell create tag=dns base=base-system
  ERROR: unsupported property: base!

Thinking that maybe it just wasn't picking up my basejail, I then tried the following:

root@~ # iocell create tag=dns base=10.3-RELEASE
  ERROR: unsupported property: base!

It seems that base is not actually a supported property. develop is currently in sync with master, so I don't think I'm missing anything there. Also, the man-page for iocell upgrade mention that cloned and thick jails are both deprecated. So, what's the solution here? Should base be release in the man-page? Is base something that's in the pipeline? Something else entirely?

[bartekrutkowski]

@timewasted thanks for the issue report! I can reproduce it and I can confirm that this is a problem. For the time being, I don't know what's causing it (iocell inherited all its code and issues from iocage-devel branch) but I'll try and find the cause and propose a fix to it.

[bartekrutkowski]

@skarekrow Would you mind sharing your thoughts here? It seems like this is not caused by any change made in iocell so far, so you actually might know what the problem (and idea behind base being gone) is.

[skarekrow]

@bartekrutkowski Sure, weird this didn't email me. Anyways, the thought if I recall correctly was because iocage started supporting CURRENT, STABLE, etc and user templates. My memories fuzzy on the exact details now since it's been so long, but it seemed counter-intuitive at the time to have the user supply release=12.0-CURRENT and such. This was a compromise that I didn't really like.

Any suggestion is welcome as I plan to remove it in the rewrite. It's not as intuitive as I hoped.

[bartekrutkowski]

@skarekrow I am not sure I understand what you mean. The original question still stands, should base be a supported property, or should it be release instead? Should basejail be the only supported jail type?
Thanks for the input.

[skarekrow]

@bartekrutkowski I personally found base to be more confusing then it was helpful. Up to you ultimately, it's your fork, but I'd stick with release. I have also tried 3 (or 4?) different types of basejails, and have found them to be FAR more trouble then the space they save. I won't be bringing that concept forward personally, once again your choice.

[rspeed]

I think that might have had something to do with trying to get basejails to work on top of an arbitrary source. So you'd have the choice of either naming a specific release or a template jail. The advantage being that you could start up the template to make changes which would apply to all of the basejails.