El Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit va escriure: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 10:08:17PM +0000, Sergio Talens-Oliag wrote: > > reopen 443871 > > thanks > > I did not closed the bug, I marked it wontfix.
Yes, I noticed that when the control interface told me it was open, my fault. > It's not a matter of "not good enough" it's just brittle. My job is to > provide a good sane default for 99% of the use of the software. I can't > provide a perfect sane default for any use, so just make up your stuff > if you need to. I do, but I was trying to reduce the work needed. > You don't need to touch the init.d script, only the one in > /etc/resolvconf/update.d/pdnsd, so please, give me a break. For your own > system, you can hardcode the thing in there if you want, the merge will > be trivial. (especially since it's a one liner diff). I don't need to touch the init.d script? Are you sure? I can add my pdnsd server to resolvconf using /etc/network/interfaces or the /etc/resolconf/base file, but that still leaves a wrong nameserver in the generated /etc/resolv.conf, as your init.d script always adds a ``nameserver 127.0.0.1`` to resolvconf and in my case this server is invalid. > > Now the question is, would you accept a patch to support the use of a > > variable > > in /etc/default/pdnsd to change the resolvconf server ip for manual setups? > > I don't like the fact that you have to duplicate configuration in many > places. That should just be automatic. and editing /etc/default/pdnsd > _and_ /etc/pdnsd.conf is not a good solution. People will never ever > guess they need to do things like that. And they will know that they have to touch the init.d and resolvconf scripts? Anyway, I also prefer the automatic way, that's why my first patch tried to do it by itself, replicating the same value is quite awful. > OTOH, why isn't 'any' or 0.0.0.0 suitable for you ? This way, using > 127.0.0.1 still works... I don't like to have services listening on addresses I don't want them to listen; I know that I can fix the access problem using firewall rules, but that complicates things for no advantage... in fact I prefer to modify all the /etc files of pdnsd and handle them manually than add more rules to a firewall. > And if you want my opinion, the best fix is to patch pdnsd to be able > to listen on multiple addresses... it's probably not _that_ hard. That would be a good option and has additional uses, do you know why upstream has not done it already? I have not looked at the pdnsd code, but if you believe that it would be accepted upstream I _could try_ to add the multiple addresses support. -- Sergio Talens-Oliag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://people.debian.org/~sto/> Key fingerprint = 29DF 544F 1BD9 548C 8F15 86EF 6770 052B B8C1 FA69
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
