Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:57:17 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 291357] pfctl: partial libxo support Message-ID: <bug-291357-16861-8URi4VjWUj@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-291357-16861@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-291357-16861@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=291357 --- Comment #4 from Leonid Evdokimov <leon+freebsd@darkk.net.ru> --- (In reply to crest from comment #3) I plan to keep it as (id, rule, label, counters). I'm unaware of a use-case that benefits from splitting ${rule} into bits and justifies extra effort. My two agenda points are stats/monitoring & table updates automation. Is there a good reason to rewrite anchor in an semi-unattended way? I mean, I expect `Serializer | sed | Deserializer` to be equally good in most cases, the output still needs a review by a pair of eyes equipped with `diff`. Am I missing something? I'm not a heavy pf(4) user, just a maintainer of a dozen of OPNsense boxes — so I don't know how pf evolved over time within FreeBSD codebase, how it was extended, if rule format was changed, what were API/ABI guarantees, and so on. That's why I also don't feel I'm the right person to craft a pf.conf.json & pf.conf.xml format :-) -- 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-291357-16861-8URi4VjWUj>