Hi;
In the "providers" section of the firewall script /bin/echo is called.
Maybe
it wasn''t really intended, usually echo is used in shorewall.
LEAF does not have /bin/echo, it''s a shell function instead - so this
will
fail.
We can fix ourself, but you will probably change it for future versions...
kp
--- shorewall-2.4.2.orig/firewall 2005-07-20 23:47:24.000000000 +0200
+++ shorewall-2.4.2/firewall 2005-07-27 16:11:56.748628424 +0200
@@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@
for table in $PROVIDERS; do
eval number=\$${table}_number
- /bin/echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
+ echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
done
save_command "cat > /etc/iproute2/rt_tables << __EOF__"
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:> Hi; > > In the "providers" section of the firewall script /bin/echo is called. Maybe > it wasn''t really intended, usually echo is used in shorewall. > > LEAF does not have /bin/echo, it''s a shell function instead - so this will > fail. > > We can fix ourself, but you will probably change it for future versions... > > > kp > > --- shorewall-2.4.2.orig/firewall 2005-07-20 23:47:24.000000000 +0200 > +++ shorewall-2.4.2/firewall 2005-07-27 16:11:56.748628424 +0200 > @@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@ > > for table in $PROVIDERS; do > eval number=\$${table}_number > - /bin/echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables > + echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables > done > > save_command "cat > /etc/iproute2/rt_tables << __EOF__" >KP, Does the shell that you are using on Bering support the -e option to the echo builtin? If not then your patch doesn''t work either. FWIW, busybox can provide /sbin/echo that DOES support -e (I confirmed that on Debian sarge). -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Hi Tom; Am Mittwoch 27 Juli 2005 18:58 schrieb Tom Eastep:> KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > Hi; > > > > In the "providers" section of the firewall script /bin/echo is called. > > Maybe it wasn''t really intended, usually echo is used in shorewall. > > > > LEAF does not have /bin/echo, it''s a shell function instead - so this > > will fail. > > > > We can fix ourself, but you will probably change it for future > > versions... > > > > > > kp > > > > --- shorewall-2.4.2.orig/firewall 2005-07-20 23:47:24.000000000 +0200 > > +++ shorewall-2.4.2/firewall 2005-07-27 16:11:56.748628424 +0200 > > @@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@ > > > > for table in $PROVIDERS; do > > eval number=\$${table}_number > > - /bin/echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables > > + echo -e "$number\t$table" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables > > done > > > > save_command "cat > /etc/iproute2/rt_tables << __EOF__" > > KP, > > Does the shell that you are using on Bering support the -e option to the > echo builtin? If not then your patch doesn''t work either.Yes, the ash used in Bering(-uClibc) (patched dash 0.51 incl. a patch for builtin echo) supports echo -e for a long time.> FWIW, busybox can provide /sbin/echo that DOES support -e (I confirmed that > on Debian sarge).True. But moving to bb echo requires some testing as well, and I''m not shure if there are any benefits in terms of size. As I said, we can fix ourself for 2.4.2 and future versions of shorewall. kp ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:> > > Yes, the ash used in Bering(-uClibc) (patched dash 0.51 incl. a patch for > builtin echo) supports echo -e for a long time. >Ok -- good.> >>FWIW, busybox can provide /sbin/echo that DOES support -e (I confirmed that >>on Debian sarge). > > True. But moving to bb echo requires some testing as well, and I''m not shure > if there are any benefits in terms of size. > > As I said, we can fix ourself for 2.4.2 and future versions of shorewall. >I can make the test at run-time. I''ll include it in the 2.4.3. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2005 00:12 schrieb Tom Eastep:> KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > Yes, the ash used in Bering(-uClibc) (patched dash 0.51 incl. a patch for > > builtin echo) supports echo -e for a long time. > > Ok -- good. > > >>FWIW, busybox can provide /sbin/echo that DOES support -e (I confirmed > >> that on Debian sarge). > > > > True. But moving to bb echo requires some testing as well, and I''m not > > shure if there are any benefits in terms of size. > > > > As I said, we can fix ourself for 2.4.2 and future versions of shorewall. > > I can make the test at run-time. I''ll include it in the 2.4.3.Tom; I talked about "testing replacement of dash patch vs bb echo for LEAF Bering-uClibc" - I don''t see any need shorewall has to test at runtime - maybe I''m misleaded... All I''m asking is to make the patch unnecessary with shorewall 2.4.3+. But if you think it''s needed anywhere else... Just to be shure keeping the workload as minimal as possible :) thx kp ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:> > I talked about "testing replacement of dash patch vs bb echo for LEAF > Bering-uClibc" - I don''t see any need shorewall has to test at runtime - > maybe I''m misleaded... > All I''m asking is to make the patch unnecessary with shorewall 2.4.3+. > But if you think it''s needed anywhere else... > > Just to be shure keeping the workload as minimal as possible :) >I have already implemented and tested the change. It''s probably a good idea since it allows for correct behavior if "echo" exists on the PATH or if the "echo" builtin in the shell supports -e. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Am Donnerstag 28 Juli 2005 00:56 schrieb Tom Eastep:> KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > > I talked about "testing replacement of dash patch vs bb echo for LEAF > > Bering-uClibc" - I don''t see any need shorewall has to test at runtime - > > maybe I''m misleaded... > > All I''m asking is to make the patch unnecessary with shorewall 2.4.3+. > > But if you think it''s needed anywhere else... > > > > Just to be shure keeping the workload as minimal as possible :) > > I have already implemented and tested the change. It''s probably a good idea > since it allows for correct behavior if "echo" exists on the PATH or if the > "echo" builtin in the shell supports -e. >Tom; pheew - how can a mere mortal stop you supporting and coding? Thank you! kp ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf