Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:30:08 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 231977] Multiple references to non-existent default PF configuration file (/etc/pf.conf) Message-ID: <bug-231977-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D231977 Bug ID: 231977 Summary: Multiple references to non-existent default PF configuration file (/etc/pf.conf) Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any URL: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-pf.html OS: Any Status: New Keywords: easy, needs-qa Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: Documentation Assignee: doc@FreeBSD.org Reporter: koobs@FreeBSD.org CC: pf@FreeBSD.org Flags: mfc-stable10?, mfc-stable11? At least the following documentation and system references, refer to a pf.c= onf ruleset file doesn't (no longer?) exist in a default installation: Handbook: "The default ruleset is already created and is named /etc/pf.conf" /etc/defaults/rc.conf: pf_rules=3D"/etc/pf.conf" # rules definition file for pf man 5 pf.conf: FILES=20 /etc/pf.conf Default location of the ruleset file. The issue has also been raised in the past: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2015-February/264077.= html 1) If the intention was/is only that pf looks in this location/file for a ruleset (by way of its buildtime configuration or similar) as part of a lis= t or set of locations, the documentation should be updated to be more specific. 2) If a default ruleset is supposed to be there, a default ruleset should be put there. 3) If a default ruleset is inappropriate for whatever reason, and (1) does = not apply, the references should be removed. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-231977-9>