Describe the feature you'd like
I would love to nudge @AppMana to merge their nice looking updates back up into the parent. They look like really solid, useful changes for other users. Additionally, it looks like they may have a more reliable way to integrate the kernel modules (fuse and iptables_raw) without modifications to synology's start_stop_status script, which has always been a bit of a kludgy way to integrate those, with various users encountering issues with persistence of those loaded modules.
What is the motivation for the feature?
I think using system services for the various kernel modules would be stellar! It would simplify things and would avoid the need to mutate Synology's own scripts; instead having service definitions do the heavy lifting there.
What alternatives have you considered?
The alternative is to do nothing, or just proactively create a pull request from the @AppMana fork from this end, which I feel might be rude :)
Additional context
No response
Describe the feature you'd like
I would love to nudge @AppMana to merge their nice looking updates back up into the parent. They look like really solid, useful changes for other users. Additionally, it looks like they may have a more reliable way to integrate the kernel modules (fuse and iptables_raw) without modifications to synology's
start_stop_statusscript, which has always been a bit of a kludgy way to integrate those, with various users encountering issues with persistence of those loaded modules.What is the motivation for the feature?
I think using system services for the various kernel modules would be stellar! It would simplify things and would avoid the need to mutate Synology's own scripts; instead having service definitions do the heavy lifting there.
What alternatives have you considered?
The alternative is to do nothing, or just proactively create a pull request from the @AppMana fork from this end, which I feel might be rude :)
Additional context
No response