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
No, the point was that matching OpenBSDs pf syntax for the sake of the Google results isn't a valid reason to change it. I'm not saying there aren't any valid reasons, just that useless search results isn't one of them. As for my opinion of the rule format changing, I'm fine with it as long as it happens on a major version release (ie: 11.0) and is documented. If I want to use the old pf, I'll use an old FreeBSD. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"