Update release documents and make minor change to faq

This commit is contained in:
Tom Eastep 2009-08-31 14:19:15 -07:00
parent 1544c0b2b1
commit fbfa4b4e49
3 changed files with 25 additions and 6 deletions

View File

@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ Changes in Shorewall 4.4.1
15) Fix silly hole in zones file parsing. 15) Fix silly hole in zones file parsing.
16) Tighen up zone membership checking.
Changes in Shorewall 4.4.0 Changes in Shorewall 4.4.0
1) Fix 'compile ... -' so that it no longer requires '-v-1' 1) Fix 'compile ... -' so that it no longer requires '-v-1'

View File

@ -165,6 +165,11 @@ Shorewall 4.4.1
explicitly call the module's 'initialize' function after the module explicitly call the module's 'initialize' function after the module
has been loaded. has been loaded.
12) Checking for zone membership has been tighened up. Previously,
a zone could contain <interface>:0.0.0.0/0 along with other hosts;
now, if the zone has <interface>:0.0.0.0/0 (even with exclusions),
then it may have no additional members in /etc/shorewall/hosts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R O B L E M S C O R R E C T E D I N 4 . 4 . 1 P R O B L E M S C O R R E C T E D I N 4 . 4 . 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ -194,6 +199,11 @@ Shorewall 4.4.1
7) MULTICAST=Yes generates an incorrect rule that limits its 7) MULTICAST=Yes generates an incorrect rule that limits its
effectiveness to a small part of the multicast address space. effectiveness to a small part of the multicast address space.
8) Checking for zone membership has been tighened up. Previously,
a zone could contain <interface>:0.0.0.0/0 along with other hosts;
now, if the zone has <interface>:0.0.0.0/0 (even with exclusions),
then it may have no additional members in /etc/shorewall/hosts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K N O W N P R O B L E M S R E M A I N I N G K N O W N P R O B L E M S R E M A I N I N G
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View File

@ -91,8 +91,8 @@
</section> </section>
<section id="faq75"> <section id="faq75">
<title>(FAQ 75) I can't find the Shorewall 4.x shorewall-common RPM. <title>(FAQ 75) I can't find the Shorewall 4.0 (or 4.2) shorewall-common
Where is it?</title> RPM. Where is it?</title>
<para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> If you use Simon Matter's <para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> If you use Simon Matter's
Redhat/Fedora/CentOS rpms, be aware that Simon calls the Redhat/Fedora/CentOS rpms, be aware that Simon calls the
@ -118,15 +118,15 @@
<title>Upgrading Shorewall</title> <title>Upgrading Shorewall</title>
<section id="faq66"> <section id="faq66">
<title>(FAQ 66) I'm trying to upgrade to Shorewall 4.x; where is the <title>(FAQ 66) I'm trying to upgrade to Shorewall 4.0 (or 4.2); where
'shorewall' package?</title> is the 'shorewall' package?</title>
<para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> Please see the <ulink <para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> Please see the <ulink
url="upgrade_issues.htm">upgrade issues.</ulink></para> url="upgrade_issues.htm">upgrade issues.</ulink></para>
<section id="faq66a"> <section id="faq66a">
<title>(FAQ 66a) I'm trying to upgrade to Shorewall 4.x; do I have to <title>(FAQ 66a) I'm trying to upgrade to Shorewall 4.0 (or 4.2); do I
uninstall the 'shorewall' package?</title> have to uninstall the 'shorewall' package?</title>
<para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> Please see the <ulink <para><emphasis role="bold">Answer:</emphasis> Please see the <ulink
url="upgrade_issues.htm">upgrade issues.</ulink></para> url="upgrade_issues.htm">upgrade issues.</ulink></para>
@ -539,6 +539,13 @@ REDIRECT net 22 tcp 9022</programlisting>
you use ACCEPT unless you need to hijack connections as they go through you use ACCEPT unless you need to hijack connections as they go through
your firewall and handle them on the firewall box itself; in that case, your firewall and handle them on the firewall box itself; in that case,
you use a REDIRECT rule.</para> you use a REDIRECT rule.</para>
<note>
<para>The preceding answer should <emphasis>not</emphasis> be
interpreted to mean that DNAT can only be used in conjunction with
SNAT. But in common configurations using private local addresses, that
is the most common usage.</para>
</note>
</section> </section>
<section id="faq8"> <section id="faq8">