[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: authpf -- inheriting macros from pf.conf and/or parent authpf.rules ?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: authpf -- inheriting macros from pf.conf and/or parent authpf.rules ?
- From: Philipp Buehler <OpenBSD_(_at_)_fips_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:33:44 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Reply-to: Philipp Buehler <OpenBSD_(_at_)_fips_(_dot_)_de>
On 14/07/2002, Henning Brauer <lists-openbsd_(_at_)_bsws_(_dot_)_de> wrote To misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org:
> > I took the time to read the code for authpf and most of pfctl (and some
> > related sections in pf) and I'm getting the impression that it'd take
> > someone with an intimate understanding of the code to get the "include
> > <file>" feature working. Working *properly*, that is.
> I've been looking at it some weeks ago, and it'd be ... a lot of work, at
> least. you might want to check how config(8) does it, it's not that easy.
I've looked too. And the pure problem is (like with macros):
how deep do you want to allow nesting?
Right, one level. I already see complaints about 'include doesnt woooork',
if this goes in and people try to include from an include.
I dont like the idea. If people use larger setups where a central handling
is of any use, they should use a framework for generating.
We shouldnt overdo this. m4(1) is a fine thing ;)
We have more important TODOs, right? :)
Philipp Buehler, aka fips | sysfive.com GmbH | BOfH | NUCH | <double-p>
#1: Break the clue barrier!
#2: Already had buzzword confuseritis ?
Visit your host, monkey.org