I have just upgraded to 2.6.17.7. I don't seem to have problems with it. BUT ... when it boots I get three sets of the error
"iptables: No chain/target/match by that name"
one set for each phase of SuSEfirewall's startup process.
The log output for one of the three (they are all the same) is:
Starting Firewall Initialization (phase 2 of 3) Warning: detected activated samba, enabling FW_SERVICE_SMB!
You still have to allow tcp port 139 on internal, dmz and/or external.
Warning: interface dsl0 is not (yet?)
active.
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
done
dsl0 is my modem/router. It works fine. SuSE allows me to go into and restart the Firewall no problem. I tried using the iptables -L command from Konsole and that was fine.
Do I have a problem at all?
http://images.linuxquestions.org/que...s/confused.gif
I wondered if it was simply waiting for the dsl0 interface to respond. Throwing out warnings until it got a response and then saying "done" when it was all OK?
I would probably ignore it if it were not iptables involved. I would would be very grateful for advice.
Cheers
Tim.