Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:27:46 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: nash@mcs.com Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, taob@io.org, phk@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPFW documentation Message-ID: <199606231827.MAA18224@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606231605.LAA07941@zen.nash.org> References: <199606231605.LAA07941@zen.nash.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > We have until Tuesday to get things at least somewhat 'sane'. Please > > can you take the time to document what exists in -stable!?!? > > You bet. How about this: > > - Bring src/sys/netinet/ip_fw.c up to -current level (or very > close to). > > - Bring src/sbin/ipfw/ipfw.c in line with the kernel changes. > > - Try and get the man page in shape (the version in -current is > a lot closer, but not perfect). It works for me, but I'm not expert on any of it. However, when I upgrade my box from 2.1R -> 2.1.5 I will want to know what has changed. Unfortunately, I can't do that for at least another 2 weeks since I'm upgrading everything else this week and am taking time off the week after. > When this is done, I'll announce where patches can be found so that as > many people as possible can bang on it to make sure it's ok. Patches for what? I don't think you'll get enough time to get it reviewed and in before Tuesday, but if you think it can be done go for it. In any case, the docs and the source should match by the time 2.1.5 is rolled. > That'll > give me the comfort level I'd need to place these changes into 2.1.5. > Does this sound viable? As long as everythign is in sync. I don't mind. I'd prefer backing out the new stuff completely out if we can't keep the sources and docs in sync, since the only thing worse than buggy code is code that's documented incorrectly. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606231827.MAA18224>