Re: authpf -- inheriting macros from pf.conf and/or parent authpf.rules ?

[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? :)

ciao
-- 
Philipp Buehler, aka fips | sysfive.com GmbH | BOfH | NUCH | <double-p> 

#1: Break the clue barrier!
#2: Already had buzzword confuseritis ?