| 1 |
2014-07-28 1:00 GMT+03:00 Kerin Millar <kerframil@×××××××××××.uk>: |
| 2 |
> On 27/07/2014 21:38, Grand Duet wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> 2014-07-27 22:13 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:33:47 +0300, Grand Duet wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> That's what replaces it when eth0 comes up. |
| 9 |
>>>>> It looks like eth0 is not being brought up fully |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> It sounds logical. But how can I fix it? |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> By identifying how far it is getting and why no further. |
| 16 |
>>> But it appears that eth0 is being brought up correctly |
| 17 |
>>> and then the config is overwritten by the lo config. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I think so. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> As I have already reported in another reply to this thread, |
| 23 |
>> it is my first reboot after commenting out the line |
| 24 |
>> dns_domain_lo="mynetwork" |
| 25 |
>> and so far it went good. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> Moreover, the file /etc/resolv.conf has not been overwritten. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> I still have to check if everything else works fine and |
| 30 |
>> if I will get the same result on the next reboot |
| 31 |
>> but I hope that the problem has been solved. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> But it looks like a bug in the net csript. |
| 34 |
>> Why lo configuration should overwrite eth0 configuration at all? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I would consider it be a documentation bug at the very least. Being able to |
| 38 |
> propagate different settings to resolv.conf depending on whether a given |
| 39 |
> interface is up may be of value for some esoteric use-case, although I |
| 40 |
> cannot think of one off-hand. Some other distros use the resolvconf |
| 41 |
> application to handle these nuances. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> In any case, it is inexplicable that the user is invited to define |
| 44 |
> dns_domain for the lo interface. Why would one want to push settings to |
| 45 |
> resolv.conf based on the mere fact that the loopback interface has come up? |
| 46 |
> Also, it would be a great deal less confusing if the option were named |
| 47 |
> dns_search. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I think that the handbook should refrain from mentioning the option at all, |
| 50 |
> for the reasons stated in my previous email. Those who know that they need |
| 51 |
> to define a specific search domain will know why and be capable of figuring |
| 52 |
> it out. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> It's too bad that the handbook is still peddling the notion that this |
| 55 |
> somehow has something to do with 'setting' the domain name. It is tosh of |
| 56 |
> the highest order. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I agree with you. But how to put it all in the right ears? |
Archives