> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:36:27PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
 >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
 >> >This is in fact the same case as with the above, just with a pseudo-device
 >> >instead of a physical device.
 >> >
 >> >BTW your statement that "Using ktrace(1)  can help you find what's going
 >> >on inside a command, and to determine you what's being accessed that may
 >> >cause the error message." is misleading. There is no need to use ktrace in
 >> >the case mentioned. pfctl tells you what device node did it attempt to
 >> >use. (/dev/pf)
 >> 
 >> Want to send me a patch to update the text?
 >> I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting to change...

> --- index.xml.~1.11.~	Mon Sep  4 22:46:30 2006
> +++ index.xml	Mon Sep  4 23:29:37 2006

Now it looks much better and clear. Thank you both!

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.