I am not so sure there would be much more maintenance, after all after the
split the only updates to the original 'pf-*' tree would be any serious
security or stability updates that happen to crop up.
All feature updates etc would be to the pf2-*
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:52:53 -0000, Maxim Khitrov <m...@mxcrypt.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Paul Webster
<paul.g.webs...@googlemail.com> wrote:
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.
My vote is for option 1, but I'll also be happy with option 2 if it
costs little to maintain both versions. I'm pretty much for anything
that brings pf in sync (or close to it) with OpenBSD.
- Max
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
