On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 01:10:53PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2019/02/24 12:21, Landry Breuil wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:02:08PM +1100, Stephen Gregoratto wrote: > > > Ping for visibility. > > > > > > I've been using this update on two machines for about a week now, and > > > there seems to be no loss in functionality/performance. > > > > > > Comments, OKs? > > > > Seems to work fine for me with my ruleset on 6.4. Nicholas, any opinion > > ? since you're upstream... > > I'd consider switching the port to use PCRE (diff below): > > : %%% Should I use PCRE or standard POSIX regexps? What's the difference? > : > : PCRE is a library providing "perl-compatible" regexps. These are broadly > : compatible with POSIX extended regexps, but with a number of extensions > based > : on perl regexps. > : > : Unless you want or need some of the extensions, there is generally no > : compelling reason to choose one over the other. PCRE is faster than some > : POSIX regexp implementations, but few rulesets will include sufficient > : regexps for this to make any difference. PCRE has had some security > : problems, but most regexp implementations pose a similar risk for their > : complexity if nothing else; fdm performs regexp matching as non-root in > : any case. > : > : The Debian package and FreeBSD port both use PCRE by default. > : > : Because I hate maintaining and testing two sets of code, there is a strong > : possibility that PCRE may become the fdm default at some point. > > OK sthen@ either way though.
Works for me too, will probably commit in the coming days unless i hear objections from someone whose setup breaks when using PCRE.
