From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  6 20:49:28 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9236A1065673
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  6 Jan 2012 20:49:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org)
Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.49.45])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4998FC16
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  6 Jan 2012 20:49:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 8F9A45C2E; Fri,  6 Jan 2012 15:32:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:32:26 -0500
From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>
To: Clayton Milos <clay@milos.co.za>
Message-ID: <20120106203226.GC85217@atarininja.org>
References: <01c401cccc8e$0abb9670$2032c350$@milos.co.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01c401cccc8e$0abb9670$2032c350$@milos.co.za>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Patch for net-mgmt/p0f
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:49:28 -0000

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 04:12:19PM -0000, Clayton Milos wrote:
> Hi guys
> 
> I found that p0f doesn't work with the pflog interface. A bit of searching
> and this patch turned up:
> http://desync.com/~bw/patch-p0f.c
> 
> With it applied instead of the default patch it works. It looks like the
> default patch has a few wrong line numbers in it and is missing the first
> part of the patch.
> Please could somebody commit the new patch.

These kinds of requests are better filled out as a PR so that they don't
get lost in the daily shuffle of this list.

For now I will take a look at that patch and see about getting it
committed.

-- WXS