From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 2 11:00:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F414D16A41C for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:00:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD42B43D49 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:00:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j62B0Icj024031 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:00:18 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j62B0Iqw024030; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:00:18 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:00:18 GMT Message-Id: <200507021100.j62B0Iqw024030@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org From: Yar Tikhiy Cc: Subject: Re: kern/77570: [PATCH] ipfw: Multiple rules may have the same number. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Yar Tikhiy List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:00:19 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/77570; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Yar Tikhiy To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl, maxim@macomnet.ru Cc: Subject: Re: kern/77570: [PATCH] ipfw: Multiple rules may have the same number. Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 14:51:17 +0400 Folks, Sorry, I haven't looked at how the discussion on freebsd-ipfw is going on ;-) but I can tell for myself that I consider having this "bug" in ipfw very useful. I use it often when I have to add some rules to a firewall temporarily and then remove them after a while. I add the temporary rules with the same rule number and then just type "ipfw d " once instead of having to remove each rule separately, which would be the case if the "bug" were "fixed". OTOH, thou shouldst abstain from messing with ipfw while having the morning cloudiness in thy mind and tremor in thy hands ;-))) Therefore I vote for closing this PR after making sure the current behaviour is well documented on the ipfw(8) manpage. -- Yar