Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:04:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> To: nik@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: seggers@semyam.dinoco.de, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/7791: ipf(1) and ipfstat(1) should have been ipf(8) and ipfstat(8) Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.990411030348.25844D-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <199904102031.NAA59532@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 nik@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > 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)? Just to incite inappropriate discusion: IPFILTER has suffered serious bitrot. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.990411030348.25844D-100000>