Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:08:10 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting Involved Message-ID: <4F1D318A.30602@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <CAPBZQG2S9T4v_4g09mXaukG4o3_4w8h51py6-iPoA%2BgmsuenUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAConN%2BkZquK7MJ_6YPtEV=sJdqC%2BniRqMmp2ZgQL%2Bo2m1wvXSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPBZQG2S9T4v_4g09mXaukG4o3_4w8h51py6-iPoA%2BgmsuenUw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/21/12 5:41 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Walt Elam <wrelam@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would like to help with the development of the PF port for FreeBSD but am >> not quite sure how to get involved. More specifically, I would like to help >> get something ported over that accepts the new rule syntax since it becomes >> increasingly harder to find documentation, help, and tutorials for the >> older syntax. >> >> If anyone could point me in the right direction for getting involved, that >> would be great. >> >> > There is one catch. > FreeBSD does not want to break compatibility of old syntax and that is why > i did not port the latest version of pf(4). > > What is there now makes it 'trivial' to go to the latest pf(4) version in > Open but there needs to be a layer of translation > for the old syntax to new syntax. > > That is te only reason its not been done. > While we're at it, are there any plans for being able to include files to the main PF conf ? Currently, we're emulating this using anchors, but plain includes would be nicer. The way I see it here, in our own environment, we'd have a first include with our interface definitions, another with options and so on...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F1D318A.30602>