On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:15:36AM -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels <lars.eng...@0x20.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote: > >> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of > >> pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people, > >> which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an conquer for other > >> platforms. I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been > >> mentioned in this thread. It would be awesome if it ended up as a supported > >> linux thing as well, so the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess > >> thats just an unrealistic dream > > > > And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the work. > > No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change. > > Gleb believes that the majority of FreeBSD users don't want the > updated syntax, among other changes, from the more recent pf versions. > Developers who share his opinion are not going to volunteer to do the > work. This discussion is about showing this belief to be wrong, which > is the first step in the process. > > In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the > SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to > follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to > reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter has to be done > upstream, otherwise it'll always be a story of diverging codebases. > Furthermore, if FreeBSD developers were willing to spend some time > improving pf performance on OpenBSD, then Henning and other OpenBSD > developers might be more receptive to changes that make the porting > process easier.
smp is not the only change we did, if you forget about it you will also get into other co plication to sync from openbsd Bapt
Description: PGP signature