On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:20:40PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote:
A> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:07:35PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote:
A> > A> There is a problem in recent -current to build ipfw with WITHOUT_PF
A> > A> option, introduced in r257215. altq.c file produce error due to included
A> > A> <net/pfvar.h> have following includes
A> > A> 
A> > A> #include <netpfil/pf/pf.h>
A> > A> #include <netpfil/pf/pf_altq.h>
A> > A> #include <netpfil/pf/pf_mtag.h>
A> > A> 
A> > A> and netpfil/pf directory is empty in
A> > A> /usr/src/include/Makefile with WITHOUT_PF option.
A> > 
A> > The quick solution would be to make ipfw lose some functionality if
A> > PF is cut away from system.
A> > 
A> > The proper solution would be to make ALTQ configurable w/o pfctl.
A> > 
A> How it was handled previously? F.e. ipfw in -stable 9 builds normally
A> with WITHOUT_PF and have pfvar.h included too, but old pfvar.h have only
A> <net/pf_mtag.h> which is available with WITHOUT_PF.

In 11 we are splitting the includes, but this isn't actually the cause
of problem. This is unrelated.

The cause is that in stable/9 header installation ignores WITHOUT_PF
and installs headers always. Userland programs (except core pf utilities)
are also compiled with pf support.

So, in 11 WITHOUT_PF is more clean, but as you found, some consequences

Totus tuus, Glebius.
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to