[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #16 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #15)
> (In reply to Eric Garver from comment #14)
> > If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue
> > upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR.
>
> This is the 15th comment on this topic. Are you sure you're the right person
> writing the documentation if you need to ask this - when someone already
> filed a report that there is a problem?
I was referring to the upstream firewalld documentation as many of the items
you mentioned are relevant to upstream. This bug is for fedora downstream
documentation. Both accept contributions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #15 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi> ---
(In reply to Eric Garver from comment #14)
> If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue
> upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR.
This is the 15th comment on this topic. Are you sure you're the right person
writing the documentation if you need to ask this - when someone already filed
a report that there is a problem?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #14 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #10)
[..]
> Using --direct removes the whole point of having that daemon+userinterface
> and removes the benefits they provide. Only thing left are the other
> limitations, missing documenation, weird "concepts" and broken XML (and who
> knows what else crap).
If you have documentation topics that you'd like to see, then file an issue
upstream.. or better yet add them and submit a PR.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #13 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Mai Ling from comment #9)
> and another stupid thing is that you must specify the physical interface
> name like in traditional iptables, but I expected it to integrate nicely
> with networkmanager and I expected to be able to write connection names, not
> interface names, and then I expected it to automatically translate to
> physical interface names!
> but I guess I have too high expectations of firewalld...
What you describe already occurs. firewalld integrates with NetworkManager. You
can set the "zone" in the NM connection settings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
--- Comment #12 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Mai Ling from comment #8)
> this is even more stupid. direct rules do not work with interface 'any', you
> must explicitly set both physical interface name for input and output.
>
> so "-i interface1 -o any" does not work! (tested on RHEL 7.5)
"-o any" attempts to match an output interface with name "any". If you want to
match _any_ output interface, then omit the option. You can also use
wildcarding with "+". This is covered pretty thoroughly in the iptables man
page.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 929426] firewalld: forward chain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929426
Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egarver(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #11 from Eric Garver <egarver(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Mai Ling from comment #7)
> this is stupid. having to add direct rules is stupid. why does not firewalld
> offer a native way to add rules to chain FORWARD in table filter?
Because no one has implemented the feature.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months
[Bug 1761177] New: Screensaver Inconsistant or Non-existant. Please
Bring It Back
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761177
Bug ID: 1761177
Summary: Screensaver Inconsistant or Non-existant. Please Bring
It Back
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: docs-requests
Severity: medium
Assignee: pbokoc(a)redhat.com
Reporter: trennor.turcotte95(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: docs-qa(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
CC: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org, sparks(a)redhat.com,
stickster(a)gmail.com, zach(a)oglesby.co
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
I am still on F29, however expect to upgrade to F30+ in April, 2020. One 'bug'
which is really bugginig me is the inconsistency of the screensaver. Sometimes
it works, sometimes it doesn't; I'm used to it working most of the time, but
lately, that has turned around so it's not working most of the time. Now, some
boffin or technically minded person came up with the a theory that screensavers
are not needed anymore because the modern screens don't need saving from
burning images on them. I don't care about that; what I care about is the
privacy a screensaver gives me when I'm away from my computer. I generally use
the black 'screen blanking' feature currently found in the power savings; I
would like that either fixed so it works consistently, or moved from power
settings and a button placed on the task bar (could be optional) which I can
press with the mouse and activate my saver, or in case I'm away for more than a
set time, the saver will kick in automatically. Like it's supposed to do now,
only it doesn't.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
4 years, 6 months