On 07/06/2017 04:11 AM, Vieri Di Paola via Shorewall-users wrote:
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Tom Eastep <[email protected]>
>>
>> I see that you are using interface names as the SOURCE in your
>> masquerade/snat rules. That has been deprecated for years (and generates
>> warnings during compilation).
> 
> 
> I've been using Shorewall since 2002/2003. I always used the "masq" file 
> until now.
> The warning didn't bother me much because it says that the interface must be 
> up and configured beforehand.
> 
> 
> My /etc/shorewall/snat includes another file.
> 
> # cat /etc/shorewall/snat
> ?IF $FW_TYPE
> 
> INCLUDE /SAMBA/${FW_TYPE}_extra/snat.FHM
> 
> ?ENDIF
> 

This is why, with AUTOMAKE=Yes, 'check' can fail but 'start' succeeds.
With AUTOMAKE=Yes, /sbin/shorewall looks at the directories named in
CONFIG_PATH and it runs the compiler only if it finds one newer than
/var/lib/shorewall/firewall. I assume that /SAMBA/${FW_TYPE}_extra/ is
not on the CONFIG_PATH...

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep        \   Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with
Shoreline,         \     an international standard?
Washington, USA     \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't
http://shorewall.org \   understand
                      \_______________________________________________

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to