J Martin Rushton wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:29, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 17.11.2015 17:51, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> Nick Bright wrote:
On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts
> the permanent configuration, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/11/15 17:29, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 17.11.2015 17:51, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Nick Bright wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts
the permanen
On 17.11.2015 17:51, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Nick Bright wrote:
>> On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the
>>> permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup.
>>> Another changes the current running envir
On Nov 17, 2015 12:11 PM, wrote:
> tell me progress, and final result. You'd think they were an old New
> Englander.
>
> mark, ayu'
_
Totally hilarious. Thanks for making my day.
Mike
___
CentOS mailing list
Ce
Nick Bright wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the
>> permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup.
>> Another changes the current running environment without altering the
>> startup config. From
On 11/16/2015 3:58 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/16/2015 01:39 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
This is very frustrating, and not obvious. If --permanent doesn't
work for a command, then it should give an error - not silently fail
without doing anything!
But --permanent *did* work.
No, it didn't. N
On 11/17/2015 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the
permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup.
Another changes the current running environment without altering the
startup config. From a sysadmin point of view thi
On 17.11.2015 15:18, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Mon, November 16, 2015 16:39, Nick Bright wrote:
>> On 11/6/2015 3:58 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>> I have a couple of relevant articles you may be interested in ...
>>>
>>> On assigning the zone via NM:
>>> https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8
>>>
>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:18:22AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> This behaviour is congruent with SELinux. One utility adjusts the
> permanent configuration, the one that will be applied at startup.
> Another changes the current running environment without altering the
> startup config. From a sy
On Mon, November 16, 2015 16:39, Nick Bright wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 3:58 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>> I have a couple of relevant articles you may be interested in ...
>>
>> On assigning the zone via NM:
>> https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8
>>
>> Look down to the "Specifying a particular firewall
Em 17-11-2015 01:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn escreveu:
On 16.11.2015 22:58, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/16/2015 01:39 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
This is very frustrating, and not obvious. If --permanent doesn't work
for a command, then it should give an error - not silently fail
without doing anythin
On 16.11.2015 22:58, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 01:39 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
>> This is very frustrating, and not obvious. If --permanent doesn't work
>> for a command, then it should give an error - not silently fail
>> without doing anything!
>
> But --permanent *did* work.
>
> What
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112742
--
Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
"I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship"
===
On 11/16/2015 01:39 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
This is very frustrating, and not obvious. If --permanent doesn't work
for a command, then it should give an error - not silently fail
without doing anything!
But --permanent *did* work.
What you're seeing is the documented behavior:
--perman
On 11/6/2015 3:58 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
I have a couple of relevant articles you may be interested in ...
On assigning the zone via NM:
https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8
Look down to the "Specifying a particular firewall zone" bit ...
remember that if you edit the files rather than using n
On 6 November 2015 at 21:49, Pete Travis wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2015 3:31 PM, "Nick Bright" wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> One of my biggest frustrations with CentOS 7 has been firewalld.
>>
>> Essentially all of the documentation just flat doesn't work.
>>
>> One common thing that needs to be done is
On Nov 6, 2015 3:31 PM, "Nick Bright" wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> One of my biggest frustrations with CentOS 7 has been firewalld.
>
> Essentially all of the documentation just flat doesn't work.
>
> One common thing that needs to be done is to change the zone of an
interface, however I've tried:
>
On 11/6/2015 1:31 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
One of my biggest frustrations with CentOS 7 has been firewalld.
Essentially all of the documentation just flat doesn't work.
One common thing that needs to be done is to change the zone of an
interface, however I've tried:
firewall-cmd --permanent --
Greetings,
One of my biggest frustrations with CentOS 7 has been firewalld.
Essentially all of the documentation just flat doesn't work.
One common thing that needs to be done is to change the zone of an
interface, however I've tried:
firewall-cmd --permanent --zone=internal --change-interfa
19 matches
Mail list logo
