Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:41:04 +0200
From:      Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de>
To:        Pavel Timofeev <timp87@gmail.com>
Cc:        Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: www/squid: reconsider enabling all options
Message-ID:  <05F80BCC-A94E-43F5-ACFD-7240EC7507B4@lastsummer.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAAoTqfvyLMFB6Ux1eL7jW5Wi-SZRGUqzWkBMOfWw%2B5smOoXZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAKOb=YZMqaDCHtVYxme_f1p2oQ7CVwWjbR7QoOMNtDL0p7C_rA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAoTqfvyLMFB6Ux1eL7jW5Wi-SZRGUqzWkBMOfWw%2B5smOoXZZQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

> On 26 Apr 2016, at 10:31 AM, Pavel Timofeev <timp87@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 2016-04-26 1:32 GMT+03:00 Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> I was able to fix my issue by recompiling without the TP_IP and TP_IPF
>> options, but I believe more thought/discussion should be given to all the
>> new options that are now enabled by default in the port.
> 
> Do you think all three should be disabled by default, or we can enable
> one of them mostly used?

Well, the breakage only occurs with local modified builds because the
transparent proxy options weren't enabled at all before.

It probably needs an OPTIONS_RADIO along with TP_NONE, and others will
have to discuss whether to use TP_IPFW or TP_PF as the main use case.  ;)

FWIW, OPNsense uses TP_PF.


Cheers,
Franco



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?05F80BCC-A94E-43F5-ACFD-7240EC7507B4>