On Monday 20 April 2009 21:37:36 Tom Eastep wrote: > Tom Eastep wrote: > > Thanks, Steven. > > > > I believe that all issues are corrected in Git commit > > 34791612b537b90ceb76edf31fce2f299e687bee. > > Oops -- another fix in bc3424995b418fb4ea4e032065a91662d85bd46b. > > -Tom
Tom After the applying the above fixes, specifying a negative hex value (-0x8800) in mask1 produces the following message: Argument "-0x8800" isn't numeric in numeric le (<=) at /usr/share/shorewall/Shorewall/Tc.pm line 319, <$currentfile> line 46. A negative hex value (-0xcc00) in mask2 produces the following message: Argument "-0xcc00" isn't numeric in numeric le (<=) at /usr/share/shorewall/Shorewall/Tc.pm line 325, <$currentfile> line 46. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prior to the application of the above patches, specifying a mark value of 1 in the providers file was allowed. After the application of the patches, a mark value of 1 is no longer allowed. I have tried setting all combinations of Yes and No in WIDE_TC_MARKS and HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS. Is this expected? Steven. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Shorewall-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
