Hi Dave,
On 7/30/26 11:22 PM, Dave Kempe wrote:
Hi Matt,
Happy to help out. Can you mention your shorewall-nft version?
Sorry about that, I forgot to include the SHA1 of the commit I was
building on.
I will investigate your report, - building parity with the vast array of
shorewall options is a bunch of work and testing.
I appreciate you doing so.
You fixed all of the reported issues and new one will be filed on GH.
Also feel free to lodge bugs on github: https://github.com/sol1/
shorewall-nft/issues <https://github.com/sol1/shorewall-nft/issues>
I'm also trying to keep this this authoritative: https://github.com/
sol1/shorewall-nft/blob/main/docs/coverage.md <https://github.com/sol1/
shorewall-nft/blob/main/docs/coverage.md> but it is hard to cover all
the combos available.
Like Tom, you are doing a fantastic job maintaining SW-Nft and an
extensive documentations. I'll be more careful next time by checking
the docs before reporting issues!
Thanks a bunch.
P.S.
Just FYI for anyone reading this and the archive.
In SW-Iptables, it was possible to do something like:
/etc/shorewall/rules:
?INCLUDE DMZ.rules
/etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf:
CONFIG_PATH="${CONFDIR}/shorewall:${CONFDIR}/shorewall/rules.d:${SHAREDIR}/shorewall"
This `CONFIG_PATH` allowed to include files with a relative path simply
by specifying the name of the file and SW-Iptables would look for the
file in the specified directories (`rules.d` in this case).
Starting with SW-Nft, this is no longer possible as explained at
https://github.com/sol1/shorewall-nft/blob/main/docs/settings.md#safe-no-ops.
As far as I can tell, they are simply ignored without a weak warning
while checking SW's config..
-- Matt Darfeuille
--
Matt Darfeuille
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
