On Oct 3, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Richard B. Pyne wrote:
> I have been using shorewall, including iprange, for many years and never
> had a problem until recently. It would really be nice if new
> dependencies were noted.
That dependency has existed since Shorewall 4.2.something.
-Tom
Tom Eastep
I have been using shorewall, including iprange, for many years and never
had a problem until recently. It would really be nice if new
dependencies were noted.
On 10/3/2011 12:57 PM, Mark van Dijk wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I am running shorewall 4.4.23.3 and everytime I try to use shorewall
>> iprange, I
Hi,
> I am running shorewall 4.4.23.3 and everytime I try to use shorewall
> iprange, I get:
>
> /usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: bc: command not found
> /usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: test: -eq: unary operator
> expected /usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: bc: command not
I am running shorewall 4.4.23.3 and everytime I try to use shorewall
iprange, I get:
/usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: bc: command not found
/usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: test: -eq: unary operator expected
/usr/share/shorewall/lib.base: line 213: bc: command not found
/usr/share
Ed,
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 14:04 +0100, Ed W wrote:
>
> Actually, can I suggest that you *don't* support too many formats
> here? I only intended to show that there are various options, but I
> really think after that you should limit shorewall to "fewer" formats?
> (reduces scope for bugs and m
Hi
>> Consider two other interesting alternatives (not claiming either is
>> *better*, just alternatives)
>>
>> Perl style:
>> proto=>udp, port=>1024:1033,1434,5948,23773
>> networks=>221.192.199.48
> It's trivial to support that notion in addition to what I have currently
> implemented.
