Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax. (Copied from

On 11/20/2012 10:52 AM, Aldis Berjoza wrote:
>
>
> 20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" <break19@gmail.com>:
>> On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>>>   On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>>>>   2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>   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.
>>>>   But a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie.
>>>>   10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the
>>>>   problem here.
>>>>
>>>>   Cheers
>>>   What would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF?  As Olivier
>>>   Smedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If
>>>   people need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as
>>>   they have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be
>>>   development/progression.
>>>
>>>   oh
>>
>> Why not release pf2 as a port?  Then those who want the new pf can use
>> it, and those that want the old one can use it.
>>
>> Or, another option is a knob USE_NEWPF during buildworld will build the
>> new pf, otherwise it'd build the old, default one.
>>
>> This way you can still introduce the change, but default to the old one
>> for those of us who are too crusty to change. :)
>>
>
> FreeBSD already have 3x firewalls. Having 4th m I think, isn't desired.
>

Nonsense.  More options are always preferable to fewer options.

-- 
Chuck Burns <break19@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"