Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:23:07 -0000
From:      "Paul Webster" <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com>
To:        freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject:   Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.
Message-ID:  <op.wn1vktomjfousr@box.dlink.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
------------xo5kxhbZtSA6Ccv6ZiGEEy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good day all,

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.

There was a recent debate on ##freebsd about this issue and I was inclined
to mail in and get your opinions; basically it boiled down to the majority
of users wanting either:

1) To move to the newer pf and just add to releases notes what had
happened,
and
2) my own personal opinion: creating 'pf2-*' as a kernel option tree,
basically using the newer pf syntax and allowing users to choose.

I would be interested to know the feedback from you guys as to be honest
there seems to be quite a few users who actually DO want the new style
format and functionality that comes with.

I Attached the log of the conversation just for reference.

-- Thank you for your time
-- Paul G Webster 'daemon'
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
------------xo5kxhbZtSA6Ccv6ZiGEEy
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=irc-snippet.txt
Content-Type: text/plain; name="irc-snippet.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable

* daemonik (~Adium@mail.originate.com) has joined ##freebsd
<daemonik> Is the implementation of PF on FreeBSD up to date yet?
<blakkheim> no
* stormcrow (~phydeaux@c-24-126-183-121.hsd1.ga.comcast.net) has left ##=
freebsd
<blakkheim> and it won't ever be, we (retardedly) forked it with some ra=
ndom guy's patches rather than updating it
<wallshot> it's rare that that question asked about *any* part of the ba=
se OS will be answered with "yes"
<wallshot> doh.  booo @ random patches
<illuminated> blakkheim that was truly a stupid move
<blakkheim> i agree
<illuminated> any chance of getting them to 'take it back'
<blakkheim> they think freebsd users are too stupid to adapt to the newe=
r pf syntax and "thousands will upgrade without knowing and be left with=
 an unreachable system" or some bs like that
<daemon> is there anything that pf can do that ipfw cannot do
<blakkheim> check the freebsd-pf mailing list illuminated (or feel free =
to post and complain)
<daemonik> blakkheim: That's pretty damn . . wow
<daemon> might be worth a few emails to all the lists asking for other u=
sers to post into the pf list to support moving to the correct pf
<daemon> maybe we can implement the newer pf as 'pf2'
<daemonik> FreeBSD presently doesn't have ALTQ support included in the g=
eneric kernel, correct? Is there an alternative to ALTQ?
<blakkheim> daemon: i think so too
<daemonik> daemon: Is it really that hard to shout in the appropriate pl=
aces to properly inform users? What about release notes? Anybody who doe=
sn't read release notes deserves what's coming to them.
<blakkheim> that's what i said!
* chrisb has learned to read MOVED and UPDATING closely
<daemonik> Huh . . that kind of behavior is why no one respects anyone/t=
hing associated with GNOME anymore . .
<daemon> daemonik, I dont see it being that hard to use both the 'ramdon=
 guys patches' version of pf as the default for a few releases putting t=
he newer version of pf as 'pf2'
<daemon> therefor satisfying both channels of thought
<daemon> there certainly should be A WAY of using the newer version
<blakkheim> posting these thoughts to freebsd-pf@ is much more likely to=
 invoke a change (or at least a poll or something) than on irc
<daemonik> daemon: No . . the noobs are the ones who should have to use =
a pf-something. I bother to read the release notes, I want to use the co=
rrect version of the software. Why should I have to suffer? Why should I=
 change when they're the ones who suck?
* nightwalk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
<daemonik> I'll make a post later tonight. I hope that others see these =
messages and also articulate their thoughts on the mailing list. FreeBSD=
 should hold a high standard for something as important as PF.
<daemon> daemonik, if you did read release notes you would see 'ad the n=
ew version of pf is pf2' there is no need to upset users without cause; =
as the 'patched' pf is the default for the tag 'pf' at the moment making=
 the new version 'pf2' is literally much more sane
<daemon> and certainly a huge degree less antagonistic
<SlitazMint> How do I find the size of a folder?
<SlitazMint> And for that matter how do I search a man page?
<blakkheim> du -sh dirname and use /string to search
<SlitazMint> Thanks blakkheim
<daemonik> I would rather read the release notes seeing that the WRONG v=
ersion of PF gets deprecated to pf-legacy as it ought to be =97 knowing =
that those who don't read the release notes will have a bad day.
<daemonik> Referring to the CORRECT and latest stable version of PF as "=
PF2" would make FreeBSD . . well, look about as incompetent as certain L=
inux distros sometimes do to say the least.
<daemon> daemonik, transistion time should always be taken into account =
on any system; if we did was I was suggesting then 'pf' would be the new=
 version in -CURRENT but for later 9.x releases it would still have to b=
e as I pointed out above
<wallshot> i recall a number of features having 2 tagged to the name
<wallshot> UFS2 for one
<wallshot> or was it FFS2
<wallshot> and i think IPFW2
<daemon> its quite a common practice; sudeenly changing a major feature/=
system is just generally what makes people cry
<daemon> especially when it can be avoided with something as simple as a=
dding a number to the end of the kernel tag
<daemon> kernel option*
------------xo5kxhbZtSA6Ccv6ZiGEEy--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wn1vktomjfousr>