[firewalls] Notes about pf as a module

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2005-03-15 21:43, Max Laier <max at love2party.net> wrote:
> as per a discussion on -stable and a IPF related PR (kern/70401) - I'd
> like to add a note about this problem in the PF documentation.  See
> attachted diff for details.  IPF (and IPFW???) might need similar, but
> that's not my field of expertise ;)

> +
> +      <note>
> +	<para>The module assumes the presence of <literal>options
> +	  INET</literal> and <literal>device bpf</literal>.  Unless
> +	  <literal>NOINET6</literal> (for example in &man.make.conf.5;) was
> +	  defined during the build, it also requires <literal>options
> +	  INET6</literal>.</para>
> +      </note>

I think the NO_XXX options are spelled consistently with an underscore
these days.

Other than that, the change looks fine here.  I usually do have a
preference for quoting literal text in separate paragraphs, as in:

%     <note>
%       <para>The module assumes the presence of at least the following
%         options in the kernel configuration file:</para>
%
%       <programlisting>options            INET
% device           bpf</programlisting>
%
%       <para>Unless <literal>NOINET6</literal> (for example in
%         &man.make.conf.5;) was defined during the build, it also
%         requires:</para>
%
%       <programlisting>options            INET6</programlisting>
%     </note>

But that's just a matter of personal taste.