Hello,
>
> > As I've said I don't object your change. I agree it does,
> > what you intend, however I'm not sure how much it buys.
> My intention is to make warnings clear and unambiguous, such that
> referred table and anchor names can be copied and pasted into successive
> pfctl
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 11:27:18PM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> I don't object your change. However I hesitate to give OK too. I hope PF
> users, who have non-trivial rulesets will speak up here.
Feedback is welcome.
> IMO opinion we are hitting limitations of pfctl(8) here. Making
Hello,
I don't object your change. However I hesitate to give OK too. I hope PF
users, who have non-trivial rulesets will speak up here.
IMO opinion we are hitting limitations of pfctl(8) here. Making warnings
more useful requires to introduce some additional hints to pfctl, to
better express,
Tables under different anchors may have the same name, but pfctl warns
about such scenarios upon table creation to avoid mixups. Unique and
descriptive names are highly recommended (for sanity).
# pfctl -T replace -t t1
1 table created.
no changes.
# pfctl -T
