From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 08:14:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E440F16A4CE; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:14:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from auk2.snu.ac.kr (auk2.snu.ac.kr [147.46.100.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838FB43D45; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:14:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from spamrefuse@yahoo.com) Received: from [147.46.44.181] (spamrefuse@yahoo.com) by auk2.snu.ac.kr (Terrace Internet Messaging Server) with ESMTP id 2004092117:14:04:744501.29654.2113166256 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:14:04 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <414FE2D9.7040904@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:14:17 +0900 From: Rob User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040920 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Ermilov , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <414CF555.2090209@yahoo.com> <20040919122152.GA96753@ip.net.ua> <20040919123148.GA11758@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20040919143153.GA97135@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040919143153.GA97135@ip.net.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TERRACE-SPAMMARK: YES-__TRSYS_LV__3 (SR:-3.61) (SRN:SPAMROBOT) ----------------- X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:46:07 +0000 Subject: Re: ipfw man pages vs. 5.3-Stable; needs modification! X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:14:20 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:31:48PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > >>On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:21:52PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >>>On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:56:21AM +0900, Rob wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>>> >>>>The manpages of ipfw needs modification with respect to >>>>the IPFW vs.IPFW2 discussion. >>>>All this is quite misleading when 5.3 becomes stable. >>>> >>> >>>Do you mean you want the IPFW vs. IPFW2 information to be >>>removed from the manpage? If yes, I don't support this. >>>There will be a lot of people switching from 4.x to 5.x, >>>and it can be helpful for them. We can remove this in >>>future releases though. >> >>He probably means that the references to -STABLE in the manpage needs >>to be changed to say 4.x instead (and the references to -CURRENT >>probably should say 5.x instead), since when 5.3 becomes stable it will >>no longer be true that -STABLE uses IPFW as default (which is what the >>manpage says.) >> > > Ah yes, indeed. See if ipfw.8,v 1.152 is what you wanted. > If it's ok, I will order an MFC. This is indeed what is needed to make the ipfw man page correct for 5.3 release; please have this accepted before 5.3 is released!! Rob.