Re: responsibility for iptables bug
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 14, email@example.com wrote:
>> LB> You could file this a a wishlist bug report against the iptables
>> LB> package, and see if the maintainer wish to add this file (or a larger
>> LB> /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conf with some sane defaults).
> What makes you believe that the kernel defaults are not sane?
> This is an extra feature which is not required by most people, has a
> computational and memory cost and should not be enabled unless needed.
> This bug should just be closed, or at least only commented by people who
> actually know what they are talking about.
This bug should *NOT* be closed. Getting a deprecation warning for a simple and
common use of iptables is a bug somewhere, either in iptables or the kernel.
And I really fail to understand why the iptables maintainer thinks it is useful
in any way to tag this bug wontfix without any comment at all. Are people
supposed to live with that deprecation warning forever? I'd expect that Debian
provides useful defaults, running in such a warning is not useful.
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F