20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" <break19_at_gmail.com>: > On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> šOn 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote: >>> š2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webster_at_googlemail.com>: >>>> šI am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I >>>> šbelieve the final decision was that to many users are used to the old >>>> šstyle pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion. >>> šBut a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie. >>> š10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the >>> šproblem here. >>> >>> šCheers >> šWhat would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF? šAs Olivier >> šSmedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If >> špeople need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as >> šthey have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be >> šdevelopment/progression. >> >> šoh > > Why not release pf2 as a port? šThen 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. -- Aldis Berjoza FreeBSD addictReceived on Tue Nov 20 2012 - 15:52:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC