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