Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax. (Copied from freebsd-pf)

Forward notice:

I sent this to freebsd-pf originally and did not CC -current, but as the  
issue would affect current and the more opinions the better... I have sent  
it here too.

-- Cheers, daemon

-- original message

Good day all,

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.

There was a recent debate on ##freebsd about this issue and I was inclined
to mail in and get your opinions; basically it boiled down to the majority
of users wanting either:

1) To move to the newer pf and just add to releases notes what had
happened,
and
2) my own personal opinion: creating 'pf2-*' as a kernel option tree,
basically using the newer pf syntax and allowing users to choose.

I would be interested to know the feedback from you guys as to be honest
there seems to be quite a few users who actually DO want the new style
format and functionality that comes with.

I Attached the log of the conversation just for reference.

-- Thank you for your time
-- Paul G Webster 'daemon'
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
* daemonik (~Adium_at_mail.originate.com) has joined ##freebsd
<daemonik> Is the implementation of PF on FreeBSD up to date yet?
<blakkheim> no
* stormcrow (~phydeaux_at_c-24-126-183-121.hsd1.ga.comcast.net) has left ##freebsd
<blakkheim> and it won't ever be, we (retardedly) forked it with some random guy's patches rather than updating it
<wallshot> it's rare that that question asked about *any* part of the base OS will be answered with "yes"
<wallshot> doh.  booo _at_ random patches
<illuminated> blakkheim that was truly a stupid move
<blakkheim> i agree
<illuminated> any chance of getting them to 'take it back'
<blakkheim> they think freebsd users are too stupid to adapt to the newer pf syntax and "thousands will upgrade without knowing and be left with an unreachable system" or some bs like that
<daemon> is there anything that pf can do that ipfw cannot do
<blakkheim> check the freebsd-pf mailing list illuminated (or feel free to post and complain)
<daemonik> blakkheim: That's pretty damn . . wow
<daemon> might be worth a few emails to all the lists asking for other users to post into the pf list to support moving to the correct pf
<daemon> maybe we can implement the newer pf as 'pf2'
<daemonik> FreeBSD presently doesn't have ALTQ support included in the generic kernel, correct? Is there an alternative to ALTQ?
<blakkheim> daemon: i think so too
<daemonik> daemon: Is it really that hard to shout in the appropriate places to properly inform users? What about release notes? Anybody who doesn't read release notes deserves what's coming to them.
<blakkheim> that's what i said!
* chrisb has learned to read MOVED and UPDATING closely
<daemonik> Huh . . that kind of behavior is why no one respects anyone/thing associated with GNOME anymore . .
<daemon> daemonik, I dont see it being that hard to use both the 'ramdon guys patches' version of pf as the default for a few releases putting the newer version of pf as 'pf2'
<daemon> therefor satisfying both channels of thought
<daemon> there certainly should be A WAY of using the newer version
<blakkheim> posting these thoughts to freebsd-pf_at_ is much more likely to invoke a change (or at least a poll or something) than on irc
<daemonik> daemon: No . . the noobs are the ones who should have to use a pf-something. I bother to read the release notes, I want to use the correct version of the software. Why should I have to suffer? Why should I change when they're the ones who suck?
* nightwalk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
<daemonik> I'll make a post later tonight. I hope that others see these messages and also articulate their thoughts on the mailing list. FreeBSD should hold a high standard for something as important as PF.
<daemon> daemonik, if you did read release notes you would see 'ad the new version of pf is pf2' there is no need to upset users without cause; as the 'patched' pf is the default for the tag 'pf' at the moment making the new version 'pf2' is literally much more sane
<daemon> and certainly a huge degree less antagonistic
<SlitazMint> How do I find the size of a folder?
<SlitazMint> And for that matter how do I search a man page?
<blakkheim> du -sh dirname and use /string to search
<SlitazMint> Thanks blakkheim
<daemonik> I would rather read the release notes seeing that the WRONG version of PF gets deprecated to pf-legacy as it ought to be — knowing that those who don't read the release notes will have a bad day.
<daemonik> Referring to the CORRECT and latest stable version of PF as "PF2" would make FreeBSD . . well, look about as incompetent as certain Linux distros sometimes do to say the least.
<daemon> daemonik, transistion time should always be taken into account on any system; if we did was I was suggesting then 'pf' would be the new version in -CURRENT but for later 9.x releases it would still have to be as I pointed out above
<wallshot> i recall a number of features having 2 tagged to the name
<wallshot> UFS2 for one
<wallshot> or was it FFS2
<wallshot> and i think IPFW2
<daemon> its quite a common practice; sudeenly changing a major feature/system is just generally what makes people cry
<daemon> especially when it can be avoided with something as simple as adding a number to the end of the kernel tag
<daemon> kernel option*