[ re-sending as I forgot to cc the list ] On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:16:35 +0100 Arturo Borrero Gonzalez <arturo.borrero.glez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ...snip... > There is a patch from me to address this: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/304866/ > Feel free to test it and comment. > > I have the same issue in the Debian land. I applied the patch locally > in the package as a workaround. > > The patch is not applied yet to upstream. Cool. That addresses the part of the issue where the interpreter isn't fully specified, but still the question is if these are config files that users are expected to modify or are noarch scripts provided by the package that are expected to be read-only (ie, /etc vs /usr/share)? > > 6. I recently enabled the xml stuff in libnftables and am seeing a > > number of tests fail: > > > > parsing xmlfiles/55-rule-real.xml: [31mFAILED [0m (Invalid > > argument) and > > parsing xmlfiles/74-set.xml: [31mFAILED [0m (Invalid argument) > > mxml: <!-- nft add rule filter output ct secmark 0 counter --> > > cannot be a second root node after <nftables> > > > > I can't see the libmxml version in the build log. Which version of > libmxml are you using? > Seem that your version of libmxml treats XML comments different than > in my version (libmxml 2.6 from Debian). 2.7 here. ;) So, likely that changed between 2.6 and 2.7? > Also I guess you are using an outdated snapshot of libnftables. Some > important changes happened to the XML/JSON parsers. Hum, thats the 2014-01-11 snapshot. Not very old. > Anyway, thanks for the report, I'm going to review the XML parser. Thank you. > > Are these expected? The Invalid argument might be because it doesn't > > have nftables available in the build kernel? But the json tests > > work. :( > > > > Not expected at all. > > These tests simply parse the XML/JSON input, they don't send anything > to the kernel. ok. Great > > Thanks. Again, if I should send this somewhere else instead, just > > let me know. Comments welcome here, direct email and/or in the > > above review bugs. ;) > > > I think this is the right place. Excellent. Thanks. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
