Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:09:18 +0300 (MSK) From: Sergey Mokryshev <mokr@mokr.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Vallo Kallaste <kalts@estpak.ee>, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>, Hiten Pandya <hiten@unixdaemons.com>, Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: PFIL_HOOKS should be made default in 5.0 Message-ID: <20021221210002.W7129-100000@lemori.mokr.ru> In-Reply-To: <3E04A746.20C5C72E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Sergey Mokryshev wrote: > > > I'm really not a fan of "NO_PFIL_HOOKS" as an option. > > > > I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but "options PFIL_HOOKS" in GENERIC. > > Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STABLE > > to 5.0. > > If you make them non-optional, which is what started this thread, > then you *are* talking about having to add an option in to get > rid of them. > > I understand that people all want their pet software to run out > of the box without modification. > I did not start this thread :-) I've filled a PR a while ago. Since PFIL code is optional - let it be. IMHO it is good to keep the same behaviour of the default installations between versions, but entries in UPDATING, RELEASE NOTES and, probably later, FAQ will ease the transition. > > > > Probably the correct thing to do is to wire in ipfilter as a > > > Netgraph module. > > > > AFAIK Solaris, HP-UX and others lack Netgraph support, but support pfil. > > They support Streams, instead. Same ecological niche. > Never get a chance to dig in. Perhaps in the future. Darren states that PFIL code was derived from NetBSD so there are no licensing issues. Sergey Mokryshev. -- Sergey S. Mokryshev <mokr@mokr.net> SMP453, MOKR-RIPN To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021221210002.W7129-100000>