Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:36:37 +0000 From: Greg Hennessy <Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org>, Walt Elam <wrelam@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-pf@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Getting Involved Message-ID: <9EB23F6C23A8B6488E8BCC92A48E832612E69663C6@PEMEXMBXVS04.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local> In-Reply-To: <20120126235543.GA38187@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <CAConN%2BkZquK7MJ_6YPtEV=sJdqC%2BniRqMmp2ZgQL%2Bo2m1wvXSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPBZQG2S9T4v_4g09mXaukG4o3_4w8h51py6-iPoA%2BgmsuenUw@mail.gmail.com> <9EB23F6C23A8B6488E8BCC92A48E832612A5BC03A9@PEMEXMBXVS04.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local> <E0053250-530D-4ADA-8230-E506814E475D@lists.zabbadoz.net> <CAConN%2Bke5h3V6fponKgKc_Yc_XgQ%2BGXo9p_Pqqg85NKkbW158w@mail.gmail.com> <CAConN%2Bkq8kHZGNUHP9vgZDNYbQWVAcWRsWS89iXASffsPDMCEg@mail.gmail.com>, <20120126235543.GA38187@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Peter,=20 That doesn't sound unreasonable, bearing in mind how much we all $ENJOY usi= ng the operating system precisely because the interfaces are defined and st= able between major releases. I would not have expected PF 4.7 and above to be backported. =20 Reading between the lines of earlier posts I was getting the impression tha= t in case of PF it had been decided to set the 4.5 version of PF in stone f= or now and ever more in FreeBSD.=20 Could be the wrong end of the stick on my part though. =20 ________________________________________ From: owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org] On Behalf= Of Peter Jeremy [peterjeremy@acm.org] Sent: 27 January 2012 10:55 To: Walt Elam Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting Involved [SNIP] The whole problem is that the new syntax is not backward compatible with the old syntax. There has recently been a fairly long thread in -hackers discussing (in part) the need for long-term stability of interfaces. The FreeBSD Project offers interface stability within major versions, therefore an incompatible change in PF syntax could not be introduced into any FreeBSD-9 or earlier branch. It would seem a reasonable goal to port pf 4.7 (or later) into -current so it will form part of 10.x but I can't see it appearing in 9.x. -- Peter Jeremy=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9EB23F6C23A8B6488E8BCC92A48E832612E69663C6>