2014-07-28 1:00 GMT+03:00 Kerin Millar <[email protected]>: > On 27/07/2014 21:38, Grand Duet wrote: >> >> 2014-07-27 22:13 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:33:47 +0300, Grand Duet wrote: >>> >>>>> That's what replaces it when eth0 comes up. >>>>> It looks like eth0 is not being brought up fully >>>> >>>> >>>> It sounds logical. But how can I fix it? >>> >>> >>> By identifying how far it is getting and why no further. >>> But it appears that eth0 is being brought up correctly >>> and then the config is overwritten by the lo config. >> >> >> I think so. >> >> As I have already reported in another reply to this thread, >> it is my first reboot after commenting out the line >> dns_domain_lo="mynetwork" >> and so far it went good. >> >> Moreover, the file /etc/resolv.conf has not been overwritten. >> >> I still have to check if everything else works fine and >> if I will get the same result on the next reboot >> but I hope that the problem has been solved. >> >> But it looks like a bug in the net csript. >> Why lo configuration should overwrite eth0 configuration at all? > > > I would consider it be a documentation bug at the very least. Being able to > propagate different settings to resolv.conf depending on whether a given > interface is up may be of value for some esoteric use-case, although I > cannot think of one off-hand. Some other distros use the resolvconf > application to handle these nuances. > > In any case, it is inexplicable that the user is invited to define > dns_domain for the lo interface. Why would one want to push settings to > resolv.conf based on the mere fact that the loopback interface has come up? > Also, it would be a great deal less confusing if the option were named > dns_search. > > I think that the handbook should refrain from mentioning the option at all, > for the reasons stated in my previous email. Those who know that they need > to define a specific search domain will know why and be capable of figuring > it out. > > It's too bad that the handbook is still peddling the notion that this > somehow has something to do with 'setting' the domain name. It is tosh of > the highest order.
I agree with you. But how to put it all in the right ears?
