From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 27 02:38:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D398106566C for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:38:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net) Received: from mail1.jellyfishnet.co.uk (mail1.jellyfishnet.co.uk [93.91.20.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310DF8FC0A for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pemexhub01.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local (93.91.20.3) by mail1.jellyfishnet.co.uk (93.91.20.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:38:21 +0000 Received: from PEMEXMBXVS04.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local ([192.168.65.52]) by pemexhub01.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local ([192.168.65.7]) with mapi; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:37:12 +0000 From: Greg Hennessy To: Peter Jeremy , Walt Elam Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:36:37 +0000 Thread-Topic: Getting Involved Thread-Index: AczcmD8AZMzL/zdmTwanCYVd98qesAAApzum Message-ID: <9EB23F6C23A8B6488E8BCC92A48E832612E69663C6@PEMEXMBXVS04.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local> References: <9EB23F6C23A8B6488E8BCC92A48E832612A5BC03A9@PEMEXMBXVS04.jellyfishnet.co.uk.local> , <20120126235543.GA38187@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20120126235543.GA38187@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "freebsd-pf@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: Getting Involved X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:38:24 -0000 Hi Peter,=20 That doesn't sound unreasonable, bearing in mind how much we all $ENJOY usi= ng the operating system precisely because the interfaces are defined and st= able between major releases. I would not have expected PF 4.7 and above to be backported. =20 Reading between the lines of earlier posts I was getting the impression tha= t in case of PF it had been decided to set the 4.5 version of PF in stone f= or now and ever more in FreeBSD.=20 Could be the wrong end of the stick on my part though. =20 ________________________________________ From: owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org] On Behalf= Of Peter Jeremy [peterjeremy@acm.org] Sent: 27 January 2012 10:55 To: Walt Elam Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting Involved [SNIP] The whole problem is that the new syntax is not backward compatible with the old syntax. There has recently been a fairly long thread in -hackers discussing (in part) the need for long-term stability of interfaces. The FreeBSD Project offers interface stability within major versions, therefore an incompatible change in PF syntax could not be introduced into any FreeBSD-9 or earlier branch. It would seem a reasonable goal to port pf 4.7 (or later) into -current so it will form part of 10.x but I can't see it appearing in 9.x. -- Peter Jeremy=