Re: Question about periodic

Wed, 23-02-2005 at 02:36 +0800, Clive Lin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:06:16AM -0800, Doug White wrote:
> > Or take the -u out of the default, which I think is the intended behavior,
> > looking at the commit logs.  The daily_status_security_diff_flags option
> > predates the pf scripts by about 3 months so I'm not sure how that got
> > past testing :)
> > 
> > Please send-pr this and poke mlaier and keramida about it.
> 
>     At that time the pf scripts was made, it was solely used on
> 5.3-RELEASE here. :p (*cough cough*, I see, no excuse.) It looks like
> pf, ipfw and ipf periodic scripts are all suffering from exactly the
> same pain.
> 
> # grep -l new_only 5*
> 500.ipfwdenied
> 510.ipfdenied
> 520.pfdenied

Not just them... 
#grep -rl new_only .
./500.ipfwdenied
./510.ipfdenied
./600.ip6fwdenied
./700.kernelmsg
./security.functions
./520.pfdenied


(security.function is the "guilty" file)

I think this should be fixed as suggested in the PRs conf/73992  and
conf/77932

Best Regards
-- 
Rionda aka Matteo Riondato
GUFI Staff Member (http://www.gufi.org)
FreeSBIE Developer (http://www.freesbie.org)
BSD-FAQ-it Main Developer (http://utenti.gufi.org/~rionda)
Sent from: kaiser.sig11.org running FreeBSD-6.0-CURRENT