Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:28:46 +0900 From: Rob <spamrefuse@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw man pages vs. 5.3-Stable; needs modification! Message-ID: <414D7B7E.2010405@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20040919122152.GA96753@ip.net.ua> References: <414CF555.2090209@yahoo.com> <20040919122152.GA96753@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
At present the 5.3-"cvsup" has ipfw man page that says following:
USING IPFW2 IN FreeBSD-STABLE
ipfw2 is standard in FreeBSD CURRENT, whereas FreeBSD STABLE still uses
ipfw1 unless the kernel is compiled with options IPFW2, and /sbin/ipfw
and /usr/lib/libalias are recompiled with -DIPFW2 and reinstalled (the
same effect can be achieved by adding IPFW2=TRUE to /etc/make.conf before
a buildworld).
This can be confusing when 5.3 becomes "STABLE". At the moment 5.3 becomes
'STABLE', roughly something like this needs to be done:
s/STABLE/RELENG_4/
s/CURRENT/STABLE/
and probably some cosmetic modifications due to this switch of words.
Rob.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?414D7B7E.2010405>