similar to: More re: Shell and 1.4.6

The 1.4.6 version of Shorewall makes additional demands on the shell. I have found that both the RH9.0 version of ash and the version of ash that has long been available from the Shorewall download sites are *not* suitable for use with Shorewall 1.4.6. The LEAF Bering version of ash on the other hand works fine. Attached is a small shell program that will allow you to test your shell for

Changes since Beta 1: Problems Corrected: 1. Corrected a problem in Beta 1 where DNS names containing a "-" were mis-handled when they appeared in the DEST column of a rule. New Features: 1. The limit of 256 addresses for an address range has been removed. Shorewall now decomposes the range into an optimal set of network/host addresses (see also the

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

Shorewall 1.4.6 is now available. Thanks to Francesca Smith, the 1.4.6 Sample configurations are also available. The release is currently available at: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall It will be available at the other mirrors shortly. This is a minor release of Shorewall. Problems Corrected: 1) A problem seen on RH7.3 systems where Shorewall encountered

On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > >> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. > > I thought I don't need to make advertizing for well

On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent > versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise > probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support > multi-byte characters and thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system but > only

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

While I was doing come compatibility testing with various shells, I noticed the following: Using /bin/sh (which is ''bash'' on my RedHat installation): Shorewall Restarted real 0m21.246s user 0m9.650s sys 0m11.460s Using /bin/ash: Shorewall Restarted real 0m9.054s user 0m3.880s sys 0m5.070s The version of ash that I used is the one available from the

On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but > then stopped working on the code after a few months Ah. I had no idea it was in a state of disrepair. >> I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an earlier post. Is

If you encounter strange problems with 2.1.2 and are using a shell other than bash, you might try installing the ''functions'' file from CVS Shorewall2/. It corrects a problem that I ran into with ''ash''. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:

Hi, We have a CLI that certain users get dropped into when they log in. One of the things they can go is generate certificates (actually .p12 key/certificate bundles) that they will then scp out of the box from another host. Problem is that if their default shell isn't sh, ash, dash, bash, zsh, etc. then things break. Is there a workaround to allow scp/sftp to continue to work even for

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > >>> I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there >>> been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos >>> for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts? >>> >>> With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would

I''ve gone ahead and released 1.3.11. New features are: 1) A ''tcpflags'' option has been added to entries in /etc/shorewall/interfaces. This option causes Shorewall to make a set of sanity check on TCP packet header flags. 2) It is now allowed to use ''all'' in the SOURCE or DEST column in a rule. When used, ''all'' must appear

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 07:39, Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> wrote: [...] > Problem is that if their default shell isn't sh, ash, dash, bash, zsh, etc. then things break. > Is there a workaround to allow scp/sftp to continue to work even for non-shell accounts? sftp should work regardless of the user's shell since it is invoked as a ssh subsystem

On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: > On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >>>> that's all news to me,

Commit-ID: 4467d6e5caa5c97023c824114cf76c7d862340e5 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=4467d6e5caa5c97023c824114cf76c7d862340e5 Author: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail.com> AuthorDate: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:55:42 +0800 Committer: maximilian attems <max at stro.at> CommitDate: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:38:03 +0200 [klibc] [EVAL] Remove unused EV_BACKCMD

>>> >>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell .... >> > >> > > Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for > OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell

On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>> >>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one >>> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's >>> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate

On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:22:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > >So it looks like as long as dash can link with klibc then: OK, I've got it to build with klibc using klcc: $ size src/dash text data bss dec hex filename 63333 356 5940 69629 10ffd src/dash Unfortunately there seems to be something fishy in parameter expansion as it fails three