Re: perl scripts during system boot?
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 14:59:01 -0700, you wrote:
>Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 12:46:39 -0700, you wrote:
>> >Marc Haber wrote:
>> >> I am currently hacking ipmasq to be a more versatile and flexible tool
>> >> for firewall configuration. Over the time, doing this in bash has
>> >> become something of a pain.
>> >As the maintainer of ipmasq, I can certainly appreciate your pain. I
>> >just love how the bash documentation doesn't tell you what shell
>> >constructs are bashisms and which are POSIX sh. (Or at least, I haven't
>> >figured it out...)
>> I don't bother about this and freely use bashisms.
>The idea is to support non-bash /bin/sh's (usually ash, for those who
>prefer not to use the resource hog we know and love as bash...)
bash is essential for any Debian system. I can't see any reason why
wouldn't want to freely use #!/bin/bash for scripts.
>> What's the point in putting ipmasq itself to /sbin then if it won't
>> run without /usr? IMO, it is pointless to have executeables in /bin
>> and /sbin which won't run without /usr.
>it's location in /sbin is an artifact from the 2.x days (a time when I
>didn't use sort or cut).
>> > The ipmasq init script runs just after local
>> >filesystems are mounted.
>> So you didn't take into account systems that nfs-mount /usr?
>Oops... ipmasq currently runs at 41 during boot, while mountnfs.sh runs
>at 45. ipmasq really should run at 46. Feel free to file a bug. (The
>location at 41 put it just after the network coming up at 40.)
Actually, "my" ipmasq completely shuts off the box while initializing.
So it would be a _BAD_ idea to do any nfs mounts before ipmasq's
>> The ipmasq script itself was almost untouched. However, there is not
>> much left of your original rules ;-)
>If it still works out of the box for the simple setup (one external
>interface having the default route) I'll be happy.
I will try to make it so. As soon as I have a working setup, you will
get a tarball.
>> Do you plan to drop ipfwadm support at some time?
>Not until after Debian drops the 2.0 kernel-image/kernel-source
>packages, and then I'm not sure if I'll drop it after that. (A 2.0
>kernel may run more efficiently than a 2.2 under a low powered box that
>might be forced into the masq gateway role.)
I see. That might be a valid reason.
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29