Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:52:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 232396] net/miniupnpd: ipfw support does not compile, likely API change Message-ID: <bug-232396-7788-xuXUcQRFzR@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-232396-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-232396-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D232396 Dan Mahoney <freebsd@gushi.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |freebsd@gushi.org --- Comment #6 from Dan Mahoney <freebsd@gushi.org> --- ipfw support has not been improved. It seems to be the opinion of the developers that the world has moved on to pf.=20 (https://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3D3987) I disagree. It looks like the original ipfw support was based on the ipfw that was in O= SX.=20 Their 'man 4 ipfw' page can be seen here: https://www.manpagez.com/man/4/ipfirewall/ It documents a complete API with applications designed to be written against it. FreeBSD's "man 4 ipfw" makes no such mention. You can compare Apple's and FreeBSD's /usr/include/netinet/ip_fw.h I see two ways forward: 1) Someone with some good kernel knowledge rewrites the ipfw support for a modern FreeBSD with ipfw2. 2) Someone rewrites this as something that can do a system() call to a help= er app (same as most ddns, let's encrype, and dhclient programs do. Jeremy, if you still would like an upstream pull, I can make a port for the= new version and submit it for update. It will not help the ipfw situation. -Dan --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-232396-7788-xuXUcQRFzR>