Closed pktpls closed 2 weeks ago
Please backport to openwrt-24.10 branch as well, just in case it's decided to activate APK there as well :heart:
But we wanted the user to be able to select the correct dependency themselves? If someone wants to use iptables, they should do. Maybe deleting the dependency completely would be a solution?
But we wanted the user to be able to select the correct dependency themselves? If someone wants to use iptables, they should do. Maybe deleting the dependency completely would be a solution?
Yes you're probably right, better to not force iptables-nft. I'll update it
I changed the author to myself to ensure a valid sign-off, with approval from @pktpls. It seems the real name discussion is still ongoing: https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6
This PR is not needed, sorry, I was using it wrong :grimacing:
If any packages declares iptables/ip6tables as its dependency, then something needs to select a package providing it. I just selected iptables-nft and ip6tables-nft further up the dependency tree, and it's now fine.
The change with APK is not that we can't depend on virtual packages anymore, it's apparantly that there's no default provider selection anymore.
Maintainer: @PolynomialDivision hi :) Compile tested: x86_64 Run tested: x86/64
Description:
Can't use the iptables meta packages apparantly: