Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:02:12 -0400 From: Chris Marlatt <cmarlatt@rxsec.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Gergely CZUCZY <phoemix@harmless.hu>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R Message-ID: <46631034.5030700@rxsec.com> In-Reply-To: <200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net> References: <20070601103549.GA22490@localhost.localdomain> <4662E18E.6010404@delphij.net> <20070603161633.GA32255@harmless.hu> <200706032052.12077.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Max Laier wrote: > > Okay, but why? Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer > version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree? Why does ftp-proxy have to be > in base? > Why does named, or tftp, or openssh, or ntp, or,.. or... Why shouldn't there be have a fully packaged pf implementation in the base OS?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46631034.5030700>