Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:47:00 -0600 From: Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com> To: Aldis Berjoza <graudeejs@yandex.ru> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax. (Copied from freebsd-pf) Message-ID: <50ABC214.9060800@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1023391353430321@web2h.yandex.ru> References: <op.wn1vxr1jjfousr@box.dlink.com> <CABzXLYPYtQanh5O6%2BTH0=e46P990iXcDoB0apY_BOtzmn9-S7Q@mail.gmail.com> <50ABAF8E.3020101@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <50ABB0C7.7070404@gmail.com> <1023391353430321@web2h.yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/20/2012 10:52 AM, Aldis Berjoza wrote: > > > 20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" <break19@gmail.com>: >> On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: >> >>> On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote: >>>> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com>: >>>>> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I >>>>> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old >>>>> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion. >>>> But a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie. >>>> 10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the >>>> problem here. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>> What would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF? As Olivier >>> Smedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If >>> people need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as >>> they have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be >>> development/progression. >>> >>> oh >> >> Why not release pf2 as a port? Then those who want the new pf can use >> it, and those that want the old one can use it. >> >> Or, another option is a knob USE_NEWPF during buildworld will build the >> new pf, otherwise it'd build the old, default one. >> >> This way you can still introduce the change, but default to the old one >> for those of us who are too crusty to change. :) >> > > FreeBSD already have 3x firewalls. Having 4th m I think, isn't desired. > Nonsense. More options are always preferable to fewer options. -- Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50ABC214.9060800>