20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" <brea...@gmail.com>: > On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote: >>> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webs...@googlemail.com>: >>>> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I >>>> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old >>>> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion. >>> But a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie. >>> 10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the >>> problem here. >>> >>> Cheers >> What would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF? As Olivier >> Smedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If >> people need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as >> they have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be >> development/progression. >> >> oh > > Why not release pf2 as a port? Then those who want the new pf can use > it, and those that want the old one can use it. > > Or, another option is a knob USE_NEWPF during buildworld will build the > new pf, otherwise it'd build the old, default one. > > This way you can still introduce the change, but default to the old one > for those of us who are too crusty to change. :) >
FreeBSD already have 3x firewalls. Having 4th m I think, isn't desired. -- Aldis Berjoza FreeBSD addict _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
