Re: Shorewall 4.5.2.2 startup question
Brian pointed out:
> Incidentally, shorewall has had 'startup=0' since Lenny at least. You
> probably forgot that you must have altered the default sometime in the
> past and didn't think the README in /usr/share/doc worth a glance.
> Also, /etc/default/shorewall is a conffile so if indeed the upgrade
> replaced it you could be looking at a bug.
It might be a bug Brian, in /etc/shorewall.conf there is, at the top of this file an
option:
###############################################################################
#
# Shorewall Version 4 -- /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf
#
# For information about the settings in this file, type "man shorewall.conf"
#
# Manpage also online at http://www.shorewall.net/manpages/shorewall.conf.html
###############################################################################
# S T A R T U P E N A B L E D
###############################################################################
STARTUP_ENABLED=Yes
in this new version of the Documents I failed to read the part about the importance
of editing the /etc/default/shorewall file so I wrote the list for the answer, and
learned something new.
As far as the latest /doc/shorewall-doc/html say, there is nothing about making
sure the /etc/default/shorewall file is squared with
the /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf file that I saw.
In /doc/shorewall-core there's nothing about this
In /doc/shorewall-doc/ there are subfolders of HTML and HTML/images and
manpages in great abundance but no README.
In /usr/share/shorewall there are subfolders of Shorewall and config files but even
there alas no README or mention of the etc/default/shorewall file.
I might add that I also use shorewall-init and the /doc/shorewall-init of which
resides no mention of this necessary file, /etc/default/shorewall.
If you use shorewall Brian, do tell me where this information resides in the
new 4.5.2.2 version of the documentation.
If this file (/etc/default/shorewall) existed in the previous version it must have
been created without my knowing as I never saw it before.
As far as being 'rude' well I don't know. The message from hugo AKA hvw59601 could
have gone either way, hugo didn't elaborate beyond his diplomatic statement that I
construed to be cryptic in nature suggesting a less than subtle slight and
considering the people who post to this list I took no chances but nonetheless
hoped for a further dialog, which I believe has not been forthcoming. (from hugo)
By correcting hugo's spelling I hoped to help that person improve their spelling.
Why do you think that was 'definitely rude"? Don't you like to be corrected when
you're wrong Brian?
Lastly, if I've completely misunderstood hugo's question as the bleeding obvious
and indeed was not intended as some cuteness by that person, I would just say YES,
hugo I do run shorewall, what's it to you pal?
--
CK
Reply to: