Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:22:46 -0000 From: "Paul Webster" <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com> To: "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-pf@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax. Message-ID: <op.wn1yb8a7jfousr@box.dlink.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOmxWMWeZTRigv5%2BnAoxxCuF4dJhKriFNbu7zReRWnZUr6eMiQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <op.wn1vktomjfousr@box.dlink.com> <CAOmxWMWeZTRigv5%2BnAoxxCuF4dJhKriFNbu7zReRWnZUr6eMiQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just out of interest, option 3) does not entirely dismiss using the pf2-* chain of kernel options for developing using the new pf tree; sure it would be alot of work but just 'how much' would be required; Our own fork after all means that everything is created from scratch and as its 'vastly different' from the OpenBSD version surely that will also require a vast amount of time. I should probably point that doing both at the same time would by sane observation mean two projects requiring a vast amount of time; but if enough people support the 'pf2' chain then in conjunction with the fact that we should be able to borrow some of the code from OpenBSD, maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. Time will tell which one becomes the more popular. On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:02:40 -0000, Chris Buechler <cbuechler@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Paul Webster > <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Good day all, >> >> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I >> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old >> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion. >> >> There was a recent debate on ##freebsd about this issue and I was >> inclined >> to mail in and get your opinions; basically it boiled down to the >> majority >> of users wanting either: >> >> 1) To move to the newer pf and just add to releases notes what had >> happened, >> and >> 2) my own personal opinion: creating 'pf2-*' as a kernel option tree, >> basically using the newer pf syntax and allowing users to choose. >> > > The line in the sand has been drawn with the SMP-friendly PF now in > HEAD. The reality is seeming to be option 3) FreeBSD pf is drastically > different and will be a fork from this point, as those SMP changes > make future merges impossible without redoing a whole lot of work. > There was some discussion and regrets here that it wasn't brought up > to the most recent pf before doing all that work, but it's done and > committed at this point. There was a good deal of discussion here at > that time, check this list's archive from earlier this year. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wn1yb8a7jfousr>