On Wednesday 23 June 2004 00:56, Doug White wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > I like _pflogd > > I like the idea too, but I think its missed the train to get in on 5.x. > This breaks a lot of distributed user management since the system users > will become desync'd from prior releases, particularly 4.x. Adoption of 5 > is a bit slack and I expect to see mixed 4/5 environments for quite a > while still. 4 to 5 is going to be a bad enough migration as is; lets not > make it worse :) > > I think its quite doable for 6.x; this gives ports a chance to get on > board without having a huge rush before 5.3 hits the street. I completely agree with you here. My question is, what should I do with pflogd? I don't see much point in creating user pflogd now, patching pflogd to use it and revert everything back for 6-current. So will it be much of a problem to add _pflogd now eventhough the rest of the daemons is not yet converted? -- Best regards, | mlaier_at_freebsd.org Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier_at_EFnet
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:58 UTC