From nobody Wed Oct 09 18:25:58 2024 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XP1YD3gPkz5YrMV for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 18:26:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org) Received: from beesty.loosely.org (beesty.loosely.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:4c0::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4XP1YB554xz4G49 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:26:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org designates 2600:3c01:e000:4c0::2 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org; dmarc=none Received: from [::1] (helo=beesty ident=itz) by beesty.loosely.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98-4-9cb179d48) (envelope-from ) id 1sybNm-000000002XU-1VsQ for questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:25:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:25:58 -0700 From: fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wireguard confusion Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: questions@freebsd.org References: <29044f1d-f835-459d-8e1c-17832580b5d9@FreeBSD.org> <20241008024304.5ff138a9@Hydrogen> <4e50caf7-dd15-4c8c-9a69-b2f7dbee8b46@FreeBSD.org> <20241009014801.60e084f9@Hydrogen> <9f0e1fff-daf5-4dd5-a972-1ed73618533a@FreeBSD.org> List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9f0e1fff-daf5-4dd5-a972-1ed73618533a@FreeBSD.org> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.08 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.997]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.88)[-0.879]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; ASN(0.00)[asn:63949, ipnet:2600:3c01::/32, country:SG]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[aceecat.org]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4XP1YB554xz4G49 X-Spamd-Bar: --- On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 07:54:40PM GMT, Kyle Evans wrote: > the version in base comes along quite far after the version in ports > and the ports script just hasn't been adopted to use it. I am still confused by this bit. The --version output is the same for both. If there are freebsd specific patches maybe the --version should be tweaked to make that obvious. > The version in base is technically safer, though, as we could > theoretically change the configuration interface for wg interfaces > and the version in base is generally guaranteed to work with the > kmod that it ships with. I can understand this part. But why can't we just adopt the rc.script into base, too, and get rid of the port entirely? -- Ian