On 11/20/2012 10:52 AM, Aldis Berjoza wrote: > > > 20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" <break19_at_gmail.com>: >> On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: >> >>> On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote: >>>> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webster_at_googlemail.com>: >>>>> 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. >>>> But a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie. >>>> 10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the >>>> problem here. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>> What would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF? As Olivier >>> Smedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If >>> people need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as >>> they have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be >>> development/progression. >>> >>> oh >> >> Why not release pf2 as a port? Then 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. > Nonsense. More options are always preferable to fewer options. -- Chuck Burns <break19_at_gmail.com>Received on Tue Nov 20 2012 - 16:47:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC