Bug#939904: systemd should ship resolvconf symlink in some package
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:02:59AM +0300, Tim Mohlmann wrote: > Hi, > > > So for wireguard's purposes, it would be good to figure out how to get > > some debian package that ships the symlink in question (i understand why > > you can't ship the symlink by default in the systemd package -- it would > > conflict with the other implementations of resolvconf). > > I've stumbled across this after I replied to 930735. Arch linux seems to > solve it by a separate package. It blocks openresolv, to prevent the > conflict on the symlink. > > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/systemd-resolvconf/ This seems like an exceedingly reasonable way of handling this. Can Debian move forward with something similar? Jason
Bug#939904: systemd should ship resolvconf symlink in some package
Hi, > So for wireguard's purposes, it would be good to figure out how to get > some debian package that ships the symlink in question (i understand why > you can't ship the symlink by default in the systemd package -- it would > conflict with the other implementations of resolvconf). I've stumbled across this after I replied to 930735. Arch linux seems to solve it by a separate package. It blocks openresolv, to prevent the conflict on the symlink. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/systemd-resolvconf/ Br, Tim On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:39:59 -0400 Daniel Kahn Gillmor < d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > On Tue 2019-09-10 08:54:35 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > wouldn't it be better if wireguard calls resolvctl directly? > > Then it knows exactly what kind of behaviour it'll get. > > > > You're right about the resolvconf.1 man page. We should not ship that in > > the systemd man page since we don't ship the resolvconf symlink either > > (for obvious reasons). > > Hm, Jason (wireguard upstream, cc'ed here) seems to believe strongly in > the resolvconf interface. he writes [0]: > > >> The standard interface for modifying DNS on Linux is resolvconf. It is for > >> this reason that systemd added the compatibility layer. Debian should > >> install the proper symlink. WireGuard upstream will support the standard > >> mechanism of resolvconf. > > fwiw, I don't understand the vehemence of his allegiance to this > interface, especially given the amount of trouble its different > implementations have caused him (and others) in the past, but *shrug* > i'd also prefer not to diverge from the version of wg-quick that he's > shipping upstream, unless someone from the systemd team wants to supply > a patch that they think is a reliable fix for the linux bash > implementation [1]. > > Is the resolvectl interface stable as documented? > > So for wireguard's purposes, it would be good to figure out how to get > some debian package that ships the symlink in question (i understand why > you can't ship the symlink by default in the systemd package -- it would > conflict with the other implementations of resolvconf). > > Is there a chance that the systemd source would generate such a package > (one that enables systemd-resolved, and supplies the symlinks to the > binary and the manpage)? > > If not, feel free to close this bug with an explanation of why that's > not acceptable. > > Thanks for your work in maintaining systemd. > > --dkg > > [0] https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-September/004521.html > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard/blob/debian/master/src/tools/wg-quick/linux.bash
Bug#939904: systemd should ship resolvconf symlink in some package
On Tue 2019-09-10 08:54:35 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > wouldn't it be better if wireguard calls resolvctl directly? > Then it knows exactly what kind of behaviour it'll get. > > You're right about the resolvconf.1 man page. We should not ship that in > the systemd man page since we don't ship the resolvconf symlink either > (for obvious reasons). Hm, Jason (wireguard upstream, cc'ed here) seems to believe strongly in the resolvconf interface. he writes [0]: >> The standard interface for modifying DNS on Linux is resolvconf. It is for >> this reason that systemd added the compatibility layer. Debian should >> install the proper symlink. WireGuard upstream will support the standard >> mechanism of resolvconf. fwiw, I don't understand the vehemence of his allegiance to this interface, especially given the amount of trouble its different implementations have caused him (and others) in the past, but *shrug* i'd also prefer not to diverge from the version of wg-quick that he's shipping upstream, unless someone from the systemd team wants to supply a patch that they think is a reliable fix for the linux bash implementation [1]. Is the resolvectl interface stable as documented? So for wireguard's purposes, it would be good to figure out how to get some debian package that ships the symlink in question (i understand why you can't ship the symlink by default in the systemd package -- it would conflict with the other implementations of resolvconf). Is there a chance that the systemd source would generate such a package (one that enables systemd-resolved, and supplies the symlinks to the binary and the manpage)? If not, feel free to close this bug with an explanation of why that's not acceptable. Thanks for your work in maintaining systemd. --dkg [0] https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-September/004521.html [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard/blob/debian/master/src/tools/wg-quick/linux.bash signature.asc Description: PGP signature
