From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 01:53:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A869137B401 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309E143F85 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h6E8r7kN025828; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) id h6E8r74X025827; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:53:07 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Matt Message-ID: <20030714015307.A25680@xorpc.icir.org> References: <49176.192.168.1.10.1058098656.squirrel@webmail.xtaz.co.uk> <49205.192.168.1.10.1058099467.squirrel@webmail.xtaz.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <49205.192.168.1.10.1058099467.squirrel@webmail.xtaz.co.uk>; from matt@xtaz.co.uk on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:31:07PM +0100 cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPFW and/or rc rule parsing not working since today's cvsup X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:53:09 -0000 just committed a fix cheers luigi On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:31:07PM +0100, Matt wrote: > > Matt said: > > I normally sync to current once a week and have just done it today: > > > > FreeBSD tao.xtaz.co.uk 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #0: Sun Jul 13 > > 12:24:40 BST 2003 root@shakira.xtaz.co.uk:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/TAO > > i386 > > > > The problem is though that it looks like IPFW or RC has changed how it > > works. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not though. If it is > > intentional then I think it is a violation of POLA.