From owner-freebsd-doc  Sat Apr 10 13:33:46 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4EA8A14C0D; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nik@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from nik@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id NAA59532;
	Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nik@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: <nik@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <199904102031.NAA59532@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: seggers@semyam.dinoco.de, nik@FreeBSD.org,
	freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: docs/7791: ipf(1) and ipfstat(1) should have been ipf(8) and ipfstat(8)
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Synopsis: ipf(1) and ipfstat(1) should have been ipf(8) and ipfstat(8)

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: nik
State-Changed-When: Sat Apr 10 13:30:35 PDT 1999
State-Changed-Why: 
ipfstat has already been moved to ipfstat(8).  ipf(1) remains (and I've
just fixed the bogus ref in the man page to ipfstat(1).  Is this OK, or
do you think ipf(1) should still move to ipf(8)?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message