Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:25:58 -0700 From: fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wireguard confusion Message-ID: <jMpwX2lQSHGg4BVh@aceecat.org> In-Reply-To: <9f0e1fff-daf5-4dd5-a972-1ed73618533a@FreeBSD.org> References: <uhVHXogbBovqSApS@aceecat.org> <29044f1d-f835-459d-8e1c-17832580b5d9@FreeBSD.org> <20241008024304.5ff138a9@Hydrogen> <4e50caf7-dd15-4c8c-9a69-b2f7dbee8b46@FreeBSD.org> <LNBY3x9Zd3CziuJD@aceecat.org> <e46b67b0-a00a-4df1-8a0d-d62d05c08c9b@FreeBSD.org> <20241009014801.60e084f9@Hydrogen> <9f0e1fff-daf5-4dd5-a972-1ed73618533a@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 07:54:40PM GMT, Kyle Evans wrote: > the version in base comes along quite far after the version in ports > and the ports script just hasn't been adopted to use it. I am still confused by this bit. The --version output is the same for both. If there are freebsd specific patches maybe the --version should be tweaked to make that obvious. > The version in base is technically safer, though, as we could > theoretically change the configuration interface for wg interfaces > and the version in base is generally guaranteed to work with the > kmod that it ships with. I can understand this part. But why can't we just adopt the rc.script into base, too, and get rid of the port entirely? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?jMpwX2lQSHGg4BVh>