> >If we had a library, we would have two pieces of code that need to be
> >modified when we make a change. That increases the potential for
> >error.
> >
> The idea behind that is to use this library in pfctl code.
> In a word, moving pfctl's reusable code (optimizing, parsing,
> adding/deleting rules...) into a separate library.
> For exemple, libevent code is not included in a 'evenctl' binary. Why
> this couldn't be the same for pfctl ?

pfctl is a complicated enough program without it having to deal
with a library interface designed for another purpose internally.

What you suggest would stop pf from growing in the future.