[Bug 781341] New: Unnecessary Requires - shorewall and tcpwrappers
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Unnecessary Requires - shorewall and tcpwrappers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781341
Summary: Unnecessary Requires - shorewall and tcpwrappers
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: high
Priority: unspecified
Component: fail2ban
AssignedTo: axel.thimm(a)atrpms.net
ReportedBy: vogel(a)folz.de
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: herrold(a)owlriver.com, mattdm(a)mattdm.org,
axel.thimm(a)atrpms.net, tim(a)niemueller.de,
vogel(a)folz.de, jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com,
ruben(a)rubenkerkhof.com, wdierkes(a)rackspace.com,
triage(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
maxamillion(a)fedoraproject.org,
voronin.andrey(a)gmail.com,
bugzilla.redhat.com(a)ewood.users.cementhorizon.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 244275
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #244275 +++
Description of problem (copied from Bug #244275):
fail2ban doesn't require shorewall to function, and in fact, as we ship it, it
makes use of the Fedora firewall - installing an extra firewall which is the
not
used in the default configuration is a bit gratuitous and confusing to the
user.
Also, the Requires: tcpwrappers isn't needed unless the user decides to enable
the tcpwrapper action (disabled by default)
Additional information:
Bug #244275 contains suggestions and possible patches for a fix, but was closed
with NOTABUG as noted in the comment from the EPEL maintainer:
--- Additional comment from maxamillion(a)fedoraproject.org on 2012-01-12
22:46:49 EST ---
Since this is just the EPEL package and I don't maintain fail2ban for Fedora, I
will be keeping it in line with Fedora proper. Please feel free to discuss this
with the Fedora package maintainer.
As I wrote in some comments in Bug #244275, I'm interested in a fix for Fedora,
which is why I file this bug now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 199246] [enh] support bridges
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199246
--- Comment #34 from Dean Hunter <deanhunter(a)comcast.net> ---
That is good and I am willing to do whatever I can to help test it.
But what we really need to know NOW is the recommended work-around. I am
willing to accept that the network management applet of the Gnome Control
Center can not be used or displays erroneous or misleading information. But
does the NetworkManager service work correctly? if so, what should the
ifcfg-br1 and ifcfg-em1 files look like? Are there steps to be taken before
configuring NetworkManager? What about routing?
These are some of the details we hope will become transparent and I am certain
you know them better than we do. There is a lot of information available that
seems dated in one regard or another and virsh iface-bridge, which seemed like
a big step forward, returns an error
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919625).
It is my understanding that a bridge could be configured to make the virtual
machine guests appear on the network as if they were network peers of the
physical machine host; they would used the same DHCP as the physical machines,
the same address range, the same DNS, etc. I have tried piecing together the
configuration, but nothing I have done quite works.
Please, is there a document you could reference or instructions you could
provide for of us that are not expert enough in the networking utilities to dig
it out on our own?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CFSI5264Nn&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 4 months
