Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:33:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 256410] pf: Add pf_default_rules option Message-ID: <bug-256410-227-cQR8wkbTzp@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-256410-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-256410-227@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=3D256410 Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |portmaster@bsdforge.com --- Comment #4 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- OK I feel bad even saying this, as you've clearly put a great deal of work into this -- probably more into the explanation that the patch. ;-) But I ran into a similar situation to the one you describe, and it occurred to me that I could simply create an /etc/pfsafe.conf with similar contents to the one you describe and simply load it in the event of a /etc/pf.conf failure. Isn't that all that's really happening here? I guess I don't really have strong opposition or opinion against your proposal. I'm only somewhat concerned about the added complexity that an added variable brings and the potential failures that could arise down the line. In any event, thanks for taking the time to create the convenient feature. :-) --Chris --=20 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-256410-227-cQR8wkbTzp>