On 11/20/2012 10:52 AM, Aldis Berjoza wrote:
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.
Nonsense. More options are always preferable to fewer options.
--
Chuck Burns <brea...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
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"
