Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:53:07 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [firewalls] Notes about pf as a module Message-ID: <20050315225307.GA63327@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <200503152143.20393.max@love2party.net> References: <200503152143.20393.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-03-15 21:43, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: > as per a discussion on -stable and a IPF related PR (kern/70401) - I'd > like to add a note about this problem in the PF documentation. See > attachted diff for details. IPF (and IPFW???) might need similar, but > that's not my field of expertise ;) > + > + <note> > + <para>The module assumes the presence of <literal>options > + INET</literal> and <literal>device bpf</literal>. Unless > + <literal>NOINET6</literal> (for example in &man.make.conf.5;) was > + defined during the build, it also requires <literal>options > + INET6</literal>.</para> > + </note> I think the NO_XXX options are spelled consistently with an underscore these days. Other than that, the change looks fine here. I usually do have a preference for quoting literal text in separate paragraphs, as in: % <note> % <para>The module assumes the presence of at least the following % options in the kernel configuration file:</para> % % <programlisting>options INET % device bpf</programlisting> % % <para>Unless <literal>NOINET6</literal> (for example in % &man.make.conf.5;) was defined during the build, it also % requires:</para> % % <programlisting>options INET6</programlisting> % </note> But that's just a matter of personal taste.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050315225307.GA63327>