pf(4) status in 7.0-R

Chris Marlatt cmarlatt at
Sun Jun 3 19:29:02 UTC 2007

Max Laier wrote:
> Okay, but why?  Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer 
> version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree?  Why does ftp-proxy have to be 
> in base?

Why does named, or tftp, or openssh, or ntp, or,.. or...

Why shouldn't there be have a fully packaged pf implementation in the 
base OS?

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list