On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 04:58:49PM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Assuming I did this, what's the approved method?
> >
> > Myself, I'd just
> >
> > # mv ipf.1 ipf.8
> > # cvs remove ipf.1
> > # cvs add ipf
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Assuming I did this, what's the approved method?
>
> Myself, I'd just
>
> # mv ipf.1 ipf.8
> # cvs remove ipf.1
> # cvs add ipf.8
> # cvs commit -m "Renamed ipf.1 to ipf.8" ipf.1 ipf.8
> [... chec
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 10:40:03AM +0930, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> > docs/7791 is of the opinion that ipf(1) should be moved to ipf(8), to
> > (among other things) be consistent with ipfw(8).
> >
> > Anyone care to comment one way or the other?
>
> Defi
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Nik Clayton wrote:
> docs/7791 is of the opinion that ipf(1) should be moved to ipf(8), to
> (among other things) be consistent with ipfw(8).
>
> Anyone care to comment one way or the other?
Definitely.
Kris
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscri
How do,
docs/7791 is of the opinion that ipf(1) should be moved to ipf(8), to
(among other things) be consistent with ipfw(8).
Anyone care to comment one way or the other?
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose
