From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 19 15:15:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk [193.237.89.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FD614E93 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) Received: (from nik@localhost) by nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id WAA52373 for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:44:54 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from nik) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:44:54 +0100 From: Nik Clayton To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Moving ipf(1) to ipf(8)? Message-ID: <19990719224454.A52115@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i Organization: Nik at home, where there's nothing going on Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG How do, docs/7791 is of the opinion that ipf(1) should be moved to ipf(8), to (among other things) be consistent with ipfw(8). Anyone care to comment one way or the other? N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message