Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Meyer wrote: > On Friday 07 March 2003 09:02 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > And I want my dhcp server to take the hostname I provide and update its dhcp > table, which it does for my 9.0 and Windows boxes. > If I manually set DHCP_HOSTNAME (this also seems to work running drakconnect in expert mode, and setting "DHCP host name", but I am not *totally* sure) then the hostname is supplied to my dhcp server, and my DDNS works (now that the clocks on the DHCP server and DNS server are not so far apart ;-)). (See bug 2553) >>Any chance of testing this? Do you have an NT DC, or win2k? I have been >>struggling to get my win2k installation to play along (took me about 4 >>hours to figure out why it did not like my keyboad and mouse anymore, >>but the win2k installation didn't have a problem with it). >> > > Unfortunately, I will not be in a position to test this until Monday. Is that > too late? Can anybody else do it? It *may* be possible for me to get an NT > pdc set up at home over the weekend to do a test, but I cannot guarantee it. I will try and coax my win2k server installation into doing the right thing, and also try joining with samba3 via kerberos (which is supposed to work in 3.0alpha22). > It would be a lot easier to just do a workstation install Monday morning at > work, if that won't be too late. Should be ok, not much difference between saturday afternoon and Monday morning (unless Pixel decides to work the weekend ... whose turn is it anyway? Warly?). But a test against an NT server would be good to hear about (since I don't have any NT servers ... just one win2k server). Anyone else with a setup to test is welcome to tell me if it works or not ... Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+aMzgrJK6UGDSBKcRAn1AAJ9mPnjmfMUFdXeEmjdZKhxNN0TWswCfU8YM IfDxC0QiEIx9puqGlDAb4hI= =6IF1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Friday 07 March 2003 09:02 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > > It seems to me there should also be an entry in dhclient-eth0.conf to > > tell the > > > dhcp client to send the requested hostname. > > No need: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > NEEDHOSTNAME=yes > DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-thinkpad > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf > send host-name "bgmilne-thinkpad"; # temporary ifup addition > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > (changed to bgmilne-tp) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# service network restart > Shutting down interface eth0: [ OK ] > Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ] > Setting network parameters: [ OK ] > Bringing up loopback interface: [ OK ] > Bringing up interface eth0: [ OK ] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > NEEDHOSTNAME=yes > DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-tp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf > send host-name "bgmilne-tp"; # temporary ifup addition > > The scripts fdo it for you. > Thanks for clarifying that > Now I just need to see why our dhcp server isn't updating dns ... > > You will notice: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# hostname > localhost > > hostname is not set, whereas I want it to be what I get from dhcp ... > And I want my dhcp server to take the hostname I provide and update its dhcp table, which it does for my 9.0 and Windows boxes. > >>This bug screws up the winbind setup (thankfully we do not yet advertise > >>the ability for a non-domain-admin to join a machine to the domain, but > >>it worked in 9.0, see > >>http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/samba/Integrating%20Linux%20into%20Wi > >>nd ows%20Networks.tar.gz ) > > > > I know and it works(worked?) great. I really enjoyed having my 9.0 > > machines > > > use my NT domain for authentication right from teh instalation. > > Any chance of testing this? Do you have an NT DC, or win2k? I have been > struggling to get my win2k installation to play along (took me about 4 > hours to figure out why it did not like my keyboad and mouse anymore, > but the win2k installation didn't have a problem with it). > Unfortunately, I will not be in a position to test this until Monday. Is that too late? Can anybody else do it? It *may* be possible for me to get an NT pdc set up at home over the weekend to do a test, but I cannot guarantee it. It would be a lot easier to just do a workstation install Monday morning at work, if that won't be too late. -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Buchan Milne wrote: > Greg Meyer wrote: >>>Greg, I installed rc2 last night, and there are two issues I see so far >>>1)No way to set DHCP_HOSTNAME in >>>/etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth? except manually. >>>2)HOSTNAME is not set in /etc/sysconfig/network >>> >> >>These values don't seem to be set no matter what is entered in > > drakconnect. > >>If I enter them manually though, they still don't take effect. This > > is not > >>my router either, because if I look at the dhcp table of the router, the >>hostnames of my 9.0 and Windows machines are entered correctly >> >> >> >> >>>IMHO, HOSTNAME should be set there if the user entered a zeroconf >>>hostname, and drakconnect should have a dialog something like "This >>>network interface requires a hostname to be sent with the DHCP request" >>>with a field to enter a name there, which goes in DHCP_HOSTNAME in >>>/etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth?. >>> >> >>It seems to me there should also be an entry in dhclient-eth0.conf to > > tell the > >>dhcp client to send the requested hostname. >> >> > > > No need: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > NEEDHOSTNAME=yes > DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-thinkpad > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf > send host-name "bgmilne-thinkpad"; # temporary ifup addition > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > (changed to bgmilne-tp) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# service network restart > Shutting down interface eth0: [ OK ] > Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ] > Setting network parameters: [ OK ] > Bringing up loopback interface: [ OK ] > Bringing up interface eth0: [ OK ] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 > NEEDHOSTNAME=yes > DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-tp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf > send host-name "bgmilne-tp"; # temporary ifup addition > > The scripts fdo it for you. > > Now I just need to see why our dhcp server isn't updating dns ... > > You will notice: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# hostname > localhost > > hostname is not set, whereas I want it to be what I get from dhcp ... > Note that 1583 is closed, I can't confirm it, I can only validate it, so instead I confirmed 2585 which is a better description of the bug (zeroconf hostname not being set as the hostname). Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+aLOlrJK6UGDSBKcRAtTNAKC5UefxsZgUQs28t7UsIvLMZYhP8ACfb+ts DTkRiIKrNXze9gQYnjdWdIY= =uzJy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Meyer wrote: > On Friday 07 March 2003 06:28 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > $ getent hosts `hostname` >>> >>>Thanks Buchan, I did see the post that an update was made and I'll >> >>test it >> >> >>>tonight. >> >>Greg, I installed rc2 last night, and there are two issues I see so far >>1)No way to set DHCP_HOSTNAME in >>/etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth? except manually. >>2)HOSTNAME is not set in /etc/sysconfig/network >> > > These values don't seem to be set no matter what is entered in drakconnect. > If I enter them manually though, they still don't take effect. This is not > my router either, because if I look at the dhcp table of the router, the > hostnames of my 9.0 and Windows machines are entered correctly > > > >>IMHO, HOSTNAME should be set there if the user entered a zeroconf >>hostname, and drakconnect should have a dialog something like "This >>network interface requires a hostname to be sent with the DHCP request" >>with a field to enter a name there, which goes in DHCP_HOSTNAME in >>/etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth?. >> > > It seems to me there should also be an entry in dhclient-eth0.conf to tell the > dhcp client to send the requested hostname. > > No need: [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 NEEDHOSTNAME=yes DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-thinkpad [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf send host-name "bgmilne-thinkpad"; # temporary ifup addition [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 (changed to bgmilne-tp) [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# service network restart Shutting down interface eth0: [ OK ] Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ] Setting network parameters: [ OK ] Bringing up loopback interface: [ OK ] Bringing up interface eth0: [ OK ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# grep -i hostname /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 NEEDHOSTNAME=yes DHCP_HOSTNAME=bgmilne-tp [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# cat /etc/dhclient-eth0.conf send host-name "bgmilne-tp"; # temporary ifup addition The scripts fdo it for you. Now I just need to see why our dhcp server isn't updating dns ... You will notice: [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]# hostname localhost hostname is not set, whereas I want it to be what I get from dhcp ... > >>This bug screws up the winbind setup (thankfully we do not yet advertise >>the ability for a non-domain-admin to join a machine to the domain, but >>it worked in 9.0, see >>http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/samba/Integrating%20Linux%20into%20Wind >>ows%20Networks.tar.gz ) >> > > I know and it works(worked?) great. I really enjoyed having my 9.0 machines > use my NT domain for authentication right from teh instalation. Any chance of testing this? Do you have an NT DC, or win2k? I have been struggling to get my win2k installation to play along (took me about 4 hours to figure out why it did not like my keyboad and mouse anymore, but the win2k installation didn't have a problem with it). NT is less effort to test, since there are no issues with the "Anonymous access" to the sam etc. It should still work out-the-box with NT, and should work for domain admins against 2k that has been set correctly. Fixing - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+aKZdrJK6UGDSBKcRAoSlAJ9puzgafZFHVMExKA8H7gMPxE2rWQCfRAVn iYXSUYBEY4aKVNtx0miI840= =K4iY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Friday 07 March 2003 06:28 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > >> > >>$ getent hosts `hostname` > > > > Thanks Buchan, I did see the post that an update was made and I'll > > test it > > > tonight. > > Greg, I installed rc2 last night, and there are two issues I see so far > 1)No way to set DHCP_HOSTNAME in > /etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth? except manually. > 2)HOSTNAME is not set in /etc/sysconfig/network > These values don't seem to be set no matter what is entered in drakconnect. If I enter them manually though, they still don't take effect. This is not my router either, because if I look at the dhcp table of the router, the hostnames of my 9.0 and Windows machines are entered correctly > IMHO, HOSTNAME should be set there if the user entered a zeroconf > hostname, and drakconnect should have a dialog something like "This > network interface requires a hostname to be sent with the DHCP request" > with a field to enter a name there, which goes in DHCP_HOSTNAME in > /etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth?. > It seems to me there should also be an entry in dhclient-eth0.conf to tell the dhcp client to send the requested hostname. > This bug screws up the winbind setup (thankfully we do not yet advertise > the ability for a non-domain-admin to join a machine to the domain, but > it worked in 9.0, see > http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/samba/Integrating%20Linux%20into%20Wind >ows%20Networks.tar.gz ) > I know and it works(worked?) great. I really enjoyed having my 9.0 machines use my NT domain for authentication right from teh instalation. > Regards, > Buchan -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Meyer wrote: > On Thursday 06 March 2003 03:46 pm, Buchan Milne wrote: > >>Greg Meyer wrote: >> >>>On Thursday 06 March 2003 11:14 am, Buchan Milne wrote: >>> >>> >>>The problem still exists that after user runs drakconnect, GNOME cannot >>>resolve localhost. Before and after entry in /etc/hosts is the same >>> >>>127.0.0.1localhost >>> >>>Whatever is preventing GNOME from resolving localhost after >> >>drakconnect is run >> >> >>>lies elsewhere. Any ideas? I'm out of them. >> >>IIRC, your problem was that your hostname was set by dhcp, but your >>tmdns was configured for your desired name? (cooker vs dhcppc5 IIRC)? >> >>In that case, it must just be that the init script is not setting your >>hostname correctly. There was a recent change somewhere (dhcp) that >>seems to have been intended to fix it. >> >>Are you getting the hostname you setup, or are you still getting your >>hostname from the dhcp server? >> >>Also, what hostname is listed in /etc/tmdns.conf? If there is one, just >>comment it out, and restart tmdns, and see if you can >> >>$ getent hosts `hostname` >> > > Thanks Buchan, I did see the post that an update was made and I'll test it > tonight. > Greg, I installed rc2 last night, and there are two issues I see so far 1)No way to set DHCP_HOSTNAME in /etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth? except manually. 2)HOSTNAME is not set in /etc/sysconfig/network IMHO, HOSTNAME should be set there if the user entered a zeroconf hostname, and drakconnect should have a dialog something like "This network interface requires a hostname to be sent with the DHCP request" with a field to enter a name there, which goes in DHCP_HOSTNAME in /etc/syconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth?. This bug screws up the winbind setup (thankfully we do not yet advertise the ability for a non-domain-admin to join a machine to the domain, but it worked in 9.0, see http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/samba/Integrating%20Linux%20into%20Windows%20Networks.tar.gz ) Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+aIJgrJK6UGDSBKcRAssjAKC29k2sfbPHpnZ0g3vCfwj9tZ9WkgCgwRMR 7+nhGavEZrJK2xyLNLRfcMQ= =SyKh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 allen wrote: > > FYI - A few versions back when I had this problem I made an entry for > 127.0.0.2. > > Seems only the 127.0.0.1 is blown over by whatever. > > And, interestingly, any 127.0.0.x will work nicely for local loopback. > > I doubt it is supposed to be that way, but it is that way. > Yes, this is a hack, and should not be necessary. Please do not advise people to use it, they should rather vote for bug 1583. - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+aIFurJK6UGDSBKcRAnk7AJ9kYv9xqeTKuweMfbJ1ZHdqIRVLTACgrgUc Ne+Ac84a9dBc05/xOqxckfs= =qAe8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thu 06 Mar 2003 22:13, allen posted as excerpted below: > Keywords "SHOULD NOT" > > I have caught some of these coming through my cable modem once I noticed > that my machine responds to more than just 127.0.0.1... I blocked off the > whole 127.0.0.x and then noticed some crap coming through my external > adapter to 127.0.0.x where x <> 1. Talk about yer mind opening security > experiences... Cable modem.. Cool.. Same here.. I always recommend, and run, both a software firewall, such as Mdk's shorewall with the kernel's netfilters, and a hardware NAPT based device, either appliance or dedicated machine, in front of my LAN (which is really just a single computer, but..). To do otherwise is simply irresponsible, IMO, and there's been a couple times when I've been VERY glad I was running it. (Once was an upgrade to CUPS with a new security setting in the rc file, only the new one was of course saved as .rpmnew, so the new setting didn't get automatically merged. My machine was broadcasting CUPS inquiries. I caught it when I did a log-all-LAN on the router, and fixed it ASAP thereafter. I was VERY glad I had the router in front of me, saving me from spewing that noise onto my ISP's subnet, when I found it.) BTW, those 127/8s coming in the cable modem almost certainly were from your local node/subnet. Routers shouldn't know where to route them even if they DID want to do so, so should just drop them. I have a hard time imagining anything configured to spit out 127/8 packets by default or accidentally, and still be decently functional, which means such packets have a VERY good chance of being deliberate hacking attempts. If it were me, I'd report it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], at least. That's pretty serious stuff.. To keep this sort of on topic.. Does shorewall check for this by default? If I read my config right, I have it being checked here, with source verification on, as well as specific per-interface IP subnet based permissions, but as many upgrades as I've done, along with my own tweaking, I haven't the foggiest if that's the default. Note two: I recently discovered that due to a misconfiguration, probably again due to upgrading in place and an update in the shipped defaults, shorewall wasn't filtering ANYTHING based on IP. The names of the default zones had changed, and the config files were out of sync with each other. Those that routinely update via URPMI, and do NOT yet routinely check all .rpmnew warnings, should double check this, particularly if you connect directly to the net w/o a dedicated hardware firewall or at least NAPT based gateway router in front of you. -- Duncan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 06 March 2003 10:52 pm, Duncan wrote: > On Thu 06 Mar 2003 15:25, allen posted as excerpted below: > > And, interestingly, any 127.0.0.x will work nicely for local loopback. > > Something to take special note of in IPTables rules, that. Don't deny > > just 127.0.0.1 from external interfaces. > The RFCs dedicate an entire /8 (formerly class A) to itl From RFC 1812: Yeah. I noticed because my Linux box accepted that range, but Solaris didn't, local machine to itself. > A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any packet > that has a source address on network 127. [] Keywords "SHOULD NOT" I have caught some of these coming through my cable modem once I noticed that my machine responds to more than just 127.0.0.1... I blocked off the whole 127.0.0.x and then noticed some crap coming through my external adapter to 127.0.0.x where x <> 1. Talk about yer mind opening security experiences... > See also this thread (including a reply by Alan Cox, so it's on pretty good > authority), which emphasizes setting the firewall right as well: > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0209.2/0136.html Yeah...
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thu 06 Mar 2003 15:25, allen posted as excerpted below: > > And, interestingly, any 127.0.0.x will work nicely for local loopback. > > I doubt it is supposed to be that way, but it is that way. > > Something to take special note of in IPTables rules, that. Don't deny > just 127.0.0.1 from external interfaces. The RFCs dedicate an entire /8 (formerly class A) to itl From RFC 1812: 5.3.7 Martian Address Filtering [] A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any packet that has a source address on network 127. [] A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any packet that has a destination address on network 127. [] See also this thread (including a reply by Alan Cox, so it's on pretty good authority), which emphasizes setting the firewall right as well: http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0209.2/0136.html The above quote and link courtesy of Google.. -- Duncan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 06 March 2003 04:16 pm, Greg Meyer wrote: > On Thursday 06 March 2003 03:46 pm, Buchan Milne wrote: > > Greg Meyer wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 March 2003 11:14 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > The problem still exists that after user runs drakconnect, GNOME cannot > > > resolve localhost. Before and after entry in /etc/hosts is the same > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost FYI - A few versions back when I had this problem I made an entry for 127.0.0.2. Seems only the 127.0.0.1 is blown over by whatever. And, interestingly, any 127.0.0.x will work nicely for local loopback. I doubt it is supposed to be that way, but it is that way. Something to take special note of in IPTables rules, that. Don't deny just 127.0.0.1 from external interfaces. -AEF
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 06 March 2003 03:46 pm, Buchan Milne wrote: > Greg Meyer wrote: > > On Thursday 06 March 2003 11:14 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > > > > The problem still exists that after user runs drakconnect, GNOME cannot > > resolve localhost. Before and after entry in /etc/hosts is the same > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > > > Whatever is preventing GNOME from resolving localhost after > > drakconnect is run > > > lies elsewhere. Any ideas? I'm out of them. > > IIRC, your problem was that your hostname was set by dhcp, but your > tmdns was configured for your desired name? (cooker vs dhcppc5 IIRC)? > > In that case, it must just be that the init script is not setting your > hostname correctly. There was a recent change somewhere (dhcp) that > seems to have been intended to fix it. > > Are you getting the hostname you setup, or are you still getting your > hostname from the dhcp server? > > Also, what hostname is listed in /etc/tmdns.conf? If there is one, just > comment it out, and restart tmdns, and see if you can > > $ getent hosts `hostname` > Thanks Buchan, I did see the post that an update was made and I'll test it tonight. -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Meyer wrote: > On Thursday 06 March 2003 11:14 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > The problem still exists that after user runs drakconnect, GNOME cannot > resolve localhost. Before and after entry in /etc/hosts is the same > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > Whatever is preventing GNOME from resolving localhost after drakconnect is run > lies elsewhere. Any ideas? I'm out of them. IIRC, your problem was that your hostname was set by dhcp, but your tmdns was configured for your desired name? (cooker vs dhcppc5 IIRC)? In that case, it must just be that the init script is not setting your hostname correctly. There was a recent change somewhere (dhcp) that seems to have been intended to fix it. Are you getting the hostname you setup, or are you still getting your hostname from the dhcp server? Also, what hostname is listed in /etc/tmdns.conf? If there is one, just comment it out, and restart tmdns, and see if you can $ getent hosts `hostname` Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+Z7O3rJK6UGDSBKcRAlYzAKCbIdhSxqmG0q/+y1SHfEf3rXDZTQCgmphu VFXbxRgRFo7A7Y4MBa/EYNE= =pOd7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 06 March 2003 11:14 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > > Is the GNOME problem fixed or do the entries appear in /etc/hosts. In my > > experience on RC2 as soon as you go through the DrakConnect dialogs, > > (DHCP machine) the /etc/hosts file gets rewritten as "127.0.0.1 > > localhost", > > > the entry is not there. > > The line should only need to be > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > If GNOME works, the bug is fixed. If you want more entries to resolve > locally, add them on seperate lines (I am not sure if it will work, but > try it). The problem still exists that after user runs drakconnect, GNOME cannot resolve localhost. Before and after entry in /etc/hosts is the same 127.0.0.1 localhost Whatever is preventing GNOME from resolving localhost after drakconnect is run lies elsewhere. Any ideas? I'm out of them. -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 06 March 2003 10:14 am, Jaco Greeff wrote: > On 06 Mar 2003 14:49:27 +0100, Teletchéa Stéphane > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > > > localhost.localdomain. > > > > > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > > > > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install > > > process ... > > > > Problem solved in rc2 !!! > > Is the GNOME problem fixed or do the entries appear in /etc/hosts. In my > experience on RC2 as soon as you go through the DrakConnect dialogs, > (DHCP machine) the /etc/hosts file gets rewritten as "127.0.0.1 localhost", > the entry is not there. > The entry is not there before you run drakconeect either, but somehow (TMDNS perhaps) GNOME is able to resolve the local host on a clean istall when you don't touch the netowrk settings. Running drakconnect breaks localhost resolution for GNOME. From what I understand, editing /etc/hosts and adding locvalhost.localdomain is not a fix for the bug, but a hack to make it work, although I have not seen anybody propse a different solution (I don't even know if there is agreement on what the problem is) and I have looked very exhaustively for the source of the problem with no luck (or perhaps with no skill). -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jaco Greeff wrote: > > On 06 Mar 2003 14:49:27 +0100, Teletchéa Stéphane > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > >>>I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : >>>localhost.localdomain. >>> > > > >>>Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. >>> >>>I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install process >>>... >> >> >>Problem solved in rc2 !!! > > > Is the GNOME problem fixed or do the entries appear in /etc/hosts. In my > experience on RC2 as soon as you go through the DrakConnect dialogs, > (DHCP machine) the /etc/hosts file gets rewritten as "127.0.0.1 localhost", > the entry is not there. The line should only need to be 127.0.0.1 localhost If GNOME works, the bug is fixed. If you want more entries to resolve locally, add them on seperate lines (I am not sure if it will work, but try it). - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+Z3PurJK6UGDSBKcRAg28AJ0YMEH2SBZB4QUm2h9LcR3UXLr9rgCdGnRd RAzTe48ilNBl8BpXQEs9UJs= =ZD5X -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On 06 Mar 2003 14:49:27 +0100, Teletchéa Stéphane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > > localhost.localdomain. > > > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install process > > ... > > Problem solved in rc2 !!! Is the GNOME problem fixed or do the entries appear in /etc/hosts. In my experience on RC2 as soon as you go through the DrakConnect dialogs, (DHCP machine) the /etc/hosts file gets rewritten as "127.0.0.1 localhost", the entry is not there. Greetings, Jaco >
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le jeu 06/03/2003 à 14:49, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit : > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 11:20, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit : > > https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583 > > > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > > localhost.localdomain. > > > > There has already been a discussion about this point, but it is not > > fixed. > > > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install process > > ... Of course, i did a fresh install of rc2 ... Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 2:00pm up 55 days, 1:52, 5 users, load average: 1.60, 1.57, 1.55 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le mar 25/02/2003 à 11:20, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit : > https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583 > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > localhost.localdomain. > > There has already been a discussion about this point, but it is not > fixed. > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install process > ... Problem solved in rc2 !!! Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 2:00pm up 55 days, 1:52, 5 users, load average: 1.60, 1.57, 1.55 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Saturday 01 March 2003 12:20 pm, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > But you are complaining about the wrong issue. The hostname should > > > *not* be set to localhost.localdomain. If it has not been configured by > > > the user it should be localhost. Hardcoding is the wrong approach, > > > since it *will* result in it breaking again some time. > > > > > > What needs to be done is that if `hostname` does not resolve, then > > > 127.0.0.1 `hostname` > > > should be added to /etc/hosts > > > > > > This would solve it in all possible cases (but could take a few seconds > > > to test). But what happens if the user changes their hostname? Should > > > the entry be removed? Speaking of which, I'll have some preliminary information on my testing to post later tonight. SInce it is a lot of info, should I post it in one long message or break it up. I'll say one thing now, no matter what network configuration I have used, accepting the defaults of the installer and NOT running drakconnect allow GNOME to function properly. As soon as I run drakconnect, under any configuration I've tested so far, GNOME cannot resolve the host. -- Greg
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On 28 Feb 2003, James Sparenberg wrote: > > But you are complaining about the wrong issue. The hostname should *not* > > be set to localhost.localdomain. If it has not been configured by the > > user it should be localhost. Hardcoding is the wrong approach, since it > > *will* result in it breaking again some time. > > > > What needs to be done is that if `hostname` does not resolve, then > > 127.0.0.1 `hostname` > > should be added to /etc/hosts > > > > This would solve it in all possible cases (but could take a few seconds > > to test). But what happens if the user changes their hostname? Should > > the entry be removed? > > Your right... it shouldn't work out of the box... solutions should not > be applied that make it easier for the end user to have a working box. > You win I give up. Completely. > So, you read selectively. I don't see why I should restate anything I have said already, so, please go and reread the whole thread, since you obviously do not understand my position. Regards, Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 01:24, Buchan Milne wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > James Sparenberg wrote: > > > OK let's try this again... please listen carefully slowly > > install MDK... start box for the very first time. Box is not connected > > to the net. Box has not yet been configured. Box is brand new. Gnome > > does not start proftpd does not start. Similar applications that > > initially look for localhost.localdomain before the box is configured do > > not work... We are talking pre configuration out of the box. brand new > > not aware of the world not 5 hours after and everything is set up. > > > But you are complaining about the wrong issue. The hostname should *not* > be set to localhost.localdomain. If it has not been configured by the > user it should be localhost. Hardcoding is the wrong approach, since it > *will* result in it breaking again some time. > > What needs to be done is that if `hostname` does not resolve, then > 127.0.0.1 `hostname` > should be added to /etc/hosts > > This would solve it in all possible cases (but could take a few seconds > to test). But what happens if the user changes their hostname? Should > the entry be removed? Your right... it shouldn't work out of the box... solutions should not be applied that make it easier for the end user to have a working box. You win I give up. Completely. James > > > Criminy if I didn't know how to set the systems up I wouldn't have known > > what the problem is. How hard is it to understand that all that is > > needed is the default config of /etc/hosts to be > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost > > Because that is wrong. Now you change your hostname to something else, > and it all breaks again. > > > > > Like every other release of Linux / Unix /Windows / Qnix / AmigaOS out > > there in the world. > > Windows 2000 Pro and Server have the following in their > c:\WINNT\system32\drivers\etc\hosts: > > # Copyright (c) 1993-1999 Microsoft Corp. > # > # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. > # > # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each > # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should > # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. > # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one > # space. > # > # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual > # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. > # > # For example: > # > # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server > # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > > Sorry, but I do not see a localhost.localdomain. I don't have any other > unix to check on available at the moment, but AFAIK, > localhost.localdomain was thought up by Redhat. > > > After 30 freaking years of Telecommunications > > systems and networks there isn't a whole lot of the basics I haven't > > seen. What I have seen is a whole passle of saviours of the (Lan wan > > arpanet internet etc) come and go. Out of the box not connected to > > anything but itself gnome, gnome apps take forever to start because of > > the change in what is normally available. You can set up DNS, I'm > > glad > > > > > > - -- > |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| > Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager > Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 > Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za > GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc > 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQE+XyrkrJK6UGDSBKcRAlRLAJ9DNkfzcjSaFHiOV+mcyXBu6dCilgCeKuRB > SgS9LI/EMI7bD5kH6XMknLo= > =zwq6 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:48:09PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: > Yes, 'host `hostname`' or 'getent hosts `hostname`' should work out the > box on every machine. host `hostname` will *NEVER* work without a DNS server. host does not use /etc/hosts for resolution at all. It only talks to DNS servers. Same thing is true of dig and nslookup: [EMAIL PROTECTED] breser]# getent hosts localhost.localdomain 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost [EMAIL PROTECTED] breser]# host localhost.localdomain Host localhost.localdomain not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] breser]# nslookup localhost.localdomain Server: 127.0.0.1 Address:127.0.0.1#53 ** server can't find localhost.localdomain: NXDOMAIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] breser]# dig localhost.localdomain ; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> localhost.localdomain ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 41427 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;localhost.localdomain. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 10397 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003022800 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 25 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Fri Feb 28 12:54:24 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 114 -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own." -- John Quincy Adams, July 4th, 1821
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charlie wrote: > On February 27, 2003 11:28 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: >c) Fix your DNS. > > > Good idea for the development version and the people that are putting this new > release together; but a bit too much for a lot of end users that just expect > things to work. No one ever said this should not work out-the-box. > Or did I misunderstand that the call was for people to > actually test the Release Candidates (and betas) under every day conditions? > Yes, with the idea of trying to find what is wrong in different environments, and find how to fix things so they work everywhere. No-one guarantees everything will work on betas/rcs. > >>>No, on here machine, zeroconf should work (I am sure I wrote that >>>somewhere in this mail) if she has a network card in it. If there is >>>*no* network interface anywhere on the machine, then it *may* be >>>necessary to add an entry to /etc/hosts. > > > Probably. The real world result; many that were willing to test the betas and > the RCs have screamed loud and often about "No internet connection!". In my > case I had a 'net connection but no DNS servers to resolve names. I managed > to get it working by reading (lurking) here but how many will just say [EMAIL PROTECTED] > it and go elsewhere for an OS if the solution is "too complex?" If you can't hack your own /etc/resolv.conf, you need to consider whether you should be beta-testing at all ... really. Screaming because there is one piece of broken software (tmdns I think must not have been allowing DNS to fail over to the next server) is really childish for beta-testers. You should *expect* breakage, and be willing to work around it (ie, you should have another way of connecting to the net to post a bug, search the mailing list etc). > >>Hal la freeking luya the man had an epiphany. Yes, there are millions >>of computers in use around the world that don't have ethernet cards. > > > Or no modem but a single broadband connection. SSDD (same s... etc.); both > situations are nothing like a corporate environment. How about people not > "connected" at all. I know a few. > > In this particular instance my box is the only connected device I own with any > interactive interface more complex than a remote control or a dial pad and > handset. I have no router, no hub or switch; [...] > I just want to be able to buy > install and use Mandrake, without having to go back to school to learn how to > configure the damned internet connection. Is that too much to ask? No, but there is no way it is going to be that solid if people are not prepared to help find the best solutions to problems like this. > >>>I was *only* answering James's problem with a network with hundreds on >>>unix servers. And in that case, someone is not doing their job right if >>>DNS does not work right (there will be many other problems too). >> >>I'm not having a problem.. I am stating the Zero-Conf doesn't buy me >>much but then neither does k-mail... > > > End users don't give a rosy rodent's rump for 'local host name,' Did I say they should? If you note carefully, I was proposing reducing the current status of 2 fields for hostnames, to just one "Computer name". > or dhcpcd vs > dhclient or zeroconf or whatever the hell. They just want to install, boot, > surf, read e-mail, and play. If this is supposed to be a desktop OS it would > seem that the tools and configurations should be as automatic as it's > possible to make them. Idiot simple; like me. Sure, but for that to be the case they need to work: 1)In a corporate network with dhcp/dns working 2)On a home machine with a small network 3)On a home machine with no network and possibly more. Hardcoding 'localhost.localdomain' into /etc/hosts is not a viable solution for 2 or 3. The user figures out how to change their hostname (via some other tool) and suddenly everything is broken again. > > I'm very glad there are people such as yourselves "busting their humps" to > make things "work out o' the box;" but there are far too many times that I > read "This is _not a support list_; fix it yourself, submit a patch, > 'worthless, learn to write a bug report' and *go away*" messages. The thinly > veiled (or blatantly open in many cases) contempt for the lowly end user is > still rampant almost everywhere in the IT industry, including the "Open > Source World," and it's that kind of shit that kills companies. Award winning > skills and work are mostly cancelled by crap attitudes. Well, guess what? This is *not* a support list. If you have issues with that, file a bug at https://qa.mandrakesoft.com and vote for it. The majority of posters on this list do provide patches, and people ranting about issues that are known, but not yet solved just waste developers time. It is not that we do not like end-users (but we probably have enough of them to deal with on our own systems), it is that it is more efficient to have everyone who posts on the list act
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On February 27, 2003 11:28 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: <"random" snips; interspersed responses> > > Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > > >>> a) Edit /etc/hosts > > >>> b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. > > >> > > >>c) Fix your DNS. Good idea for the development version and the people that are putting this new release together; but a bit too much for a lot of end users that just expect things to work. Or did I misunderstand that the call was for people to actually test the Release Candidates (and betas) under every day conditions? > > No, on here machine, zeroconf should work (I am sure I wrote that > > somewhere in this mail) if she has a network card in it. If there is > > *no* network interface anywhere on the machine, then it *may* be > > necessary to add an entry to /etc/hosts. Probably. The real world result; many that were willing to test the betas and the RCs have screamed loud and often about "No internet connection!". In my case I had a 'net connection but no DNS servers to resolve names. I managed to get it working by reading (lurking) here but how many will just say [EMAIL PROTECTED] it and go elsewhere for an OS if the solution is "too complex?" > > Hal la freeking luya the man had an epiphany. Yes, there are millions > of computers in use around the world that don't have ethernet cards. Or no modem but a single broadband connection. SSDD (same s... etc.); both situations are nothing like a corporate environment. How about people not "connected" at all. I know a few. In this particular instance my box is the only connected device I own with any interactive interface more complex than a remote control or a dial pad and handset. I have no router, no hub or switch; I have no home network and doubt I ever will since I'll never need any of that. Just an old PIII 500 MHz machine connected to a cable modem with *one* network interface card using the tulip driver that initially wouldn't connect to the ISP's name servers after beta1 was installed. Which killed the install of 9.0 I had been using because of filesystem incompatibilities. I just want to be able to buy install and use Mandrake, without having to go back to school to learn how to configure the damned internet connection. Is that too much to ask? I finally have a working connection, but it still refuses to recognize that there is no LAN, no sysadmin in the wings to rescue and chastise the "luser" with an attitude of condescending smug superiority. The latest iteration of Shorewall has decided to get in the way again as well. > > I was *only* answering James's problem with a network with hundreds on > > unix servers. And in that case, someone is not doing their job right if > > DNS does not work right (there will be many other problems too). > > I'm not having a problem.. I am stating the Zero-Conf doesn't buy me > much but then neither does k-mail... End users don't give a rosy rodent's rump for 'local host name,' or dhcpcd vs dhclient or zeroconf or whatever the hell. They just want to install, boot, surf, read e-mail, and play. If this is supposed to be a desktop OS it would seem that the tools and configurations should be as automatic as it's possible to make them. Idiot simple; like me. I'm very glad there are people such as yourselves "busting their humps" to make things "work out o' the box;" but there are far too many times that I read "This is _not a support list_; fix it yourself, submit a patch, 'worthless, learn to write a bug report' and *go away*" messages. The thinly veiled (or blatantly open in many cases) contempt for the lowly end user is still rampant almost everywhere in the IT industry, including the "Open Source World," and it's that kind of shit that kills companies. Award winning skills and work are mostly cancelled by crap attitudes. > > >>>box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is > > >>>picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note > > >>> this > > > > > > I agree with James. > > > > What, that you know it is broken, but don't care to help fix it the > > *right* way? > > > > I thought people on this list try and help fix things so they work > > better for everyone, rather than just telling each other what hacks they > > had to do to get it working (which is what I expect on the newbie list). More of the endless contempt for anyone unwilling to; or incapable of, development/coding/programming. > > Regards, > > Buchan > > How can you fix things if you don't know what it takes to fix it... this > one confuses me. I think I've ranted more than enough for a luser that can't help fix anything. Going away without being told. Regards; -- Charlie Mahan Edmonton,AB,Canada Registered user 244963 http://counter.li.org cooker (current 2002-02-27); kernel-2.4.21pre4-10mdk
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > Le ven 28/02/2003 à 10:22, Luca Olivetti a écrit : > >>IIRC it was introduced to fix a broken sendmail at the time (that needed >>both a hostname and a domain). > And mandrake does not even default to sendmail. > > I'm not 'disagreeing' on Buchan's point, but as i don't know where it > comes, and i don't know how to correct it (except providing the first > answer ...), i'll ask you one question : > > Should this behaviour be fixed ? Yes, 'host `hostname`' or 'getent hosts `hostname`' should work out the box on every machine. > > I'd say yes. > How should it be fixed : > - If it is gnome's problem, gnome must be fixed (RC1, remember it ???), > same thing for others program ... No, gnome is not broken. `hostname` *must* resolve, otherwise even ssh `hostname` may cause delays. > - If it is because of no hostname (which is not asked by default when > you set up an RTC modem connection), the post-installation process > should take this into account. The incorrect default is used. It should be "localhost", not "localhost.localdomain". > > I'm not able to code it, or track it down, but I INSIST, this is a BUG, > there is no point in arguing about it. No one ever argued that it was not a bug. Your description of the bug was not totally correct, but the behaviour is incorrect. > Now please let's focus on the way of fixinf it. Well, no-one else (who had problems with it, our machines work fine sinec we use DDNS and it works right out-the-box with no configuration on our part) thought it worthwhile to vote for the bug, but I have confirmed it now. Guys, if a bug bothers you, and it has not been confirmed yet, *vote* for it! Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+Xz5prJK6UGDSBKcRArkJAKCsV5ZnYdO7XKnzzqTZ0hi3okLDhwCePR95 e4FUYWAKQfbcO16ieNBMCXc= =OQpw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le ven 28/02/2003 à 10:22, Luca Olivetti a écrit : > Buchan Milne wrote: > > > Sorry, but I do not see a localhost.localdomain. I don't have any other > > unix to check on available at the moment, but AFAIK, > > localhost.localdomain was thought up by Redhat. > > IIRC it was introduced to fix a broken sendmail at the time (that needed > both a hostname and a domain). I'm not 'disagreeing' on Buchan's point, but as i don't know where it comes, and i don't know how to correct it (except providing the first answer ...), i'll ask you one question : Should this behaviour be fixed ? I'd say yes. How should it be fixed : - If it is gnome's problem, gnome must be fixed (RC1, remember it ???), same thing for others program ... - If it is because of no hostname (which is not asked by default when you set up an RTC modem connection), the post-installation process should take this into account. I'm not able to code it, or track it down, but I INSIST, this is a BUG, there is no point in arguing about it. Now please let's focus on the way of fixinf it. Thanks for your attention. Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 10:00am up 48 days, 21:52, 6 users, load average: 1.00, 0.99, 0.99 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Buchan Milne wrote: Sorry, but I do not see a localhost.localdomain. I don't have any other unix to check on available at the moment, but AFAIK, localhost.localdomain was thought up by Redhat. IIRC it was introduced to fix a broken sendmail at the time (that needed both a hostname and a domain). Bye -- Luca Olivetti Note.- This message reached you today, it may not tomorrow if you are using MAPS or other RBL. They arbitrarily IP addresses not related in any way to spam, disrupting Internet connectivity. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/21/1944247 and http://theory.whirlycott.com/~phil/antispam/rbl-bad/rbl-bad.html pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Sparenberg wrote: > OK let's try this again... please listen carefully slowly > install MDK... start box for the very first time. Box is not connected > to the net. Box has not yet been configured. Box is brand new. Gnome > does not start proftpd does not start. Similar applications that > initially look for localhost.localdomain before the box is configured do > not work... We are talking pre configuration out of the box. brand new > not aware of the world not 5 hours after and everything is set up. But you are complaining about the wrong issue. The hostname should *not* be set to localhost.localdomain. If it has not been configured by the user it should be localhost. Hardcoding is the wrong approach, since it *will* result in it breaking again some time. What needs to be done is that if `hostname` does not resolve, then 127.0.0.1 `hostname` should be added to /etc/hosts This would solve it in all possible cases (but could take a few seconds to test). But what happens if the user changes their hostname? Should the entry be removed? > Criminy if I didn't know how to set the systems up I wouldn't have known > what the problem is. How hard is it to understand that all that is > needed is the default config of /etc/hosts to be > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost Because that is wrong. Now you change your hostname to something else, and it all breaks again. > > Like every other release of Linux / Unix /Windows / Qnix / AmigaOS out > there in the world. Windows 2000 Pro and Server have the following in their c:\WINNT\system32\drivers\etc\hosts: # Copyright (c) 1993-1999 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host 127.0.0.1 localhost Sorry, but I do not see a localhost.localdomain. I don't have any other unix to check on available at the moment, but AFAIK, localhost.localdomain was thought up by Redhat. > After 30 freaking years of Telecommunications > systems and networks there isn't a whole lot of the basics I haven't > seen. What I have seen is a whole passle of saviours of the (Lan wan > arpanet internet etc) come and go. Out of the box not connected to > anything but itself gnome, gnome apps take forever to start because of > the change in what is normally available. You can set up DNS, I'm > glad - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XyrkrJK6UGDSBKcRAlRLAJ9DNkfzcjSaFHiOV+mcyXBu6dCilgCeKuRB SgS9LI/EMI7bD5kH6XMknLo= =zwq6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 03:50, Buchan Milne wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > > > >>> a) Edit /etc/hosts > >>> b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. > >> > >>c) Fix your DNS. > > > > > > Hello! Does my mother have a DNS on her standalone PC? Didn't think so. > > GNOME, too, should Just Work for standalone configurations without having > > an advanced user intervene first. > > No, on here machine, zeroconf should work (I am sure I wrote that > somewhere in this mail) if she has a network card in it. If there is > *no* network interface anywhere on the machine, then it *may* be > necessary to add an entry to /etc/hosts. Hal la freeking luya the man had an epiphany. Yes, there are millions of computers in use around the world that don't have ethernet cards. > > I was *only* answering James's problem with a network with hundreds on > unix servers. And in that case, someone is not doing their job right if > DNS does not work right (there will be many other problems too). I'm not having a problem.. I am stating the Zero-Conf doesn't buy me much but then neither does k-mail... > > >>>box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is > >>>picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this > > > > I agree with James. > > > > What, that you know it is broken, but don't care to help fix it the > *right* way? > > I thought people on this list try and help fix things so they work > better for everyone, rather than just telling each other what hacks they > had to do to get it working (which is what I expect on the newbie list). > > Regards, > Buchan How can you fix things if you don't know what it takes to fix it... this one confuses me.
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 01:32, Buchan Milne wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > James Sparenberg wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 03:41, Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > > > Or if your are in a situation like mine. A mixed Linux/Unix enviroment > > where One box with 9.1 on it (and likely to never be more than 2 or 3 > > out of about 150) ZeroConf has Zero effect. Argue all you want about > > POST configuration reactions. The first time you start MDK if you are > > using any gnome appolication or proftpd. The applications will not > > start. period. Until you either > > > >a) Edit /etc/hosts > >b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. > c) Fix your DNS. > > Any unix evnironment should have working DNS, otherwise all sorts of > things are issues. Set your hostname on your machine to match the name > its IP resolves to. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]$ grep ` hostname -s` /etc/hosts > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]$ > > My Gnome works just fine. On any machine in our network, without doing > anything to /etc/hosts. But our DHCP and DNS are setup right. > > > > > This continual attempt to justify something that doesn't work in a mixed > > environment is really getting on my nerves and I apologize for seeming > > harsh. ZeroConf might be a great idea. It might have benefits. BUT if > > the world around it doesn't speak ZeroConf, and the users box isn't > > working no amount time spent justifying it still leaves one result. The > > box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is > > picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this > > in my "data file" and know that MDK still won't be something I can just > > hand someone a disk and say "have fun". > > Zeroconf should only come into effect *when you have no decent network > infrastructure*. And it works with all Apples recent software. > > Buchan OK let's try this again... please listen carefully slowly install MDK... start box for the very first time. Box is not connected to the net. Box has not yet been configured. Box is brand new. Gnome does not start proftpd does not start. Similar applications that initially look for localhost.localdomain before the box is configured do not work... We are talking pre configuration out of the box. brand new not aware of the world not 5 hours after and everything is set up. Criminy if I didn't know how to set the systems up I wouldn't have known what the problem is. How hard is it to understand that all that is needed is the default config of /etc/hosts to be 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost Like every other release of Linux / Unix /Windows / Qnix / AmigaOS out there in the world. After 30 freaking years of Telecommunications systems and networks there isn't a whole lot of the basics I haven't seen. What I have seen is a whole passle of saviours of the (Lan wan arpanet internet etc) come and go. Out of the box not connected to anything but itself gnome, gnome apps take forever to start because of the change in what is normally available. You can set up DNS, I'm glad James
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 andre wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:50, Buchan Milne wrote: > > loopbackdevice is a network interface If i'm not mistaken. And she needs it to > run X > I was meaning a real (not virtual) network interface (ie a modem, network card etc). Maybe in this case (where there is only a loopback device), the machine name should be restricted to be localhost (not localhost.localdomain)? Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+Xh7lrJK6UGDSBKcRAl8eAKCHnFxdkVl/2SrmYpUliyPhBgWD1wCgizMD k23yK8rpgsdGyCWBTJWv25I= =uanl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:50, Buchan Milne wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > >>> a) Edit /etc/hosts > >>> b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. > >> > >>c) Fix your DNS. > > > > Hello! Does my mother have a DNS on her standalone PC? Didn't think so. > > GNOME, too, should Just Work for standalone configurations without having > > an advanced user intervene first. > > No, on here machine, zeroconf should work (I am sure I wrote that > somewhere in this mail) if she has a network card in it. If there is > *no* network interface anywhere on the machine, then it *may* be > necessary to add an entry to /etc/hosts. > loopbackdevice is a network interface If i'm not mistaken. And she needs it to run X
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > > >>> a) Edit /etc/hosts >>> b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. >> >>c) Fix your DNS. > > > Hello! Does my mother have a DNS on her standalone PC? Didn't think so. > GNOME, too, should Just Work for standalone configurations without having > an advanced user intervene first. No, on here machine, zeroconf should work (I am sure I wrote that somewhere in this mail) if she has a network card in it. If there is *no* network interface anywhere on the machine, then it *may* be necessary to add an entry to /etc/hosts. I was *only* answering James's problem with a network with hundreds on unix servers. And in that case, someone is not doing their job right if DNS does not work right (there will be many other problems too). >>>box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is >>>picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this > > I agree with James. > What, that you know it is broken, but don't care to help fix it the *right* way? I thought people on this list try and help fix things so they work better for everyone, rather than just telling each other what hacks they had to do to get it working (which is what I expect on the newbie list). Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+Xft6rJK6UGDSBKcRAslnAKDMjEboijedDYlpGRQe9/AVgpa5NQCgtQ8z XLkkoUdz55+WWOGD5ZXNV1o= =6ZcB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > >a) Edit /etc/hosts > >b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. > c) Fix your DNS. Hello! Does my mother have a DNS on her standalone PC? Didn't think so. GNOME, too, should Just Work for standalone configurations without having an advanced user intervene first. > > box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is > > picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this I agree with James. regards, -- Reinout van SchouwenArtificial Intelligence student email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mobile phone: +31-6-44360778 GPG public key http://www.cs.vu.nl/~reinout/reinout.asc MandrakeClub member
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Sparenberg wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 03:41, Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > Or if your are in a situation like mine. A mixed Linux/Unix enviroment > where One box with 9.1 on it (and likely to never be more than 2 or 3 > out of about 150) ZeroConf has Zero effect. Argue all you want about > POST configuration reactions. The first time you start MDK if you are > using any gnome appolication or proftpd. The applications will not > start. period. Until you either > >a) Edit /etc/hosts >b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. c) Fix your DNS. Any unix evnironment should have working DNS, otherwise all sorts of things are issues. Set your hostname on your machine to match the name its IP resolves to. [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]$ grep ` hostname -s` /etc/hosts [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]$ My Gnome works just fine. On any machine in our network, without doing anything to /etc/hosts. But our DHCP and DNS are setup right. > > This continual attempt to justify something that doesn't work in a mixed > environment is really getting on my nerves and I apologize for seeming > harsh. ZeroConf might be a great idea. It might have benefits. BUT if > the world around it doesn't speak ZeroConf, and the users box isn't > working no amount time spent justifying it still leaves one result. The > box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is > picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this > in my "data file" and know that MDK still won't be something I can just > hand someone a disk and say "have fun". Zeroconf should only come into effect *when you have no decent network infrastructure*. And it works with all Apples recent software. Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XdsirJK6UGDSBKcRAjVPAJ4iS1c81krz9u0RgwNEKg9Jt7FqFgCgggzF noNnZhPAUpbdH9PyDw7RBSE= =+JqS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 03:41, Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > Le mer 26/02/2003 à 12:02, Buchan Milne a écrit : > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > > > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > > > > > > Yes, this is what i mean. > > > I understand that i cannot be hardcoded abruptly. > > > But as many users will choose gnome, some of them, e.g. those like me > > > without any domain name, will have this error message. I figure last > > > time (9.0), the had been many complaints about gnome been so long to > > > start ... > > > > > > This needs a fix. > > > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > > > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. > > > > > > > In my testing, if no hostname is supplied in /etc/tmdns.conf, then this > > is not necessary, see the thread: DHCP Client in Mandrake 9.1 RC1. In > > this case, tmdns will provide reverse lookups for the current hostname > > (if there is a NIC present which thinks it has a cable attached, not > > sure, and cannot test, what happens with no NIC or NIC with no cable). > > I recall you some details : > On my computer, no NIC, no DHCP (i've never heard about tmdns ...), just > an RTC connection. So what i report IS a bug in those circumstances, as > i've never been prompted in a normal install to provide a network name. > > Not a matter of opinion/discussion about localhost.localdomain validity, > just a fix needed for the end user. > Stef Or if your are in a situation like mine. A mixed Linux/Unix enviroment where One box with 9.1 on it (and likely to never be more than 2 or 3 out of about 150) ZeroConf has Zero effect. Argue all you want about POST configuration reactions. The first time you start MDK if you are using any gnome appolication or proftpd. The applications will not start. period. Until you either a) Edit /etc/hosts b) Give up on proftpd / gnome and use something else. This continual attempt to justify something that doesn't work in a mixed environment is really getting on my nerves and I apologize for seeming harsh. ZeroConf might be a great idea. It might have benefits. BUT if the world around it doesn't speak ZeroConf, and the users box isn't working no amount time spent justifying it still leaves one result. The box doesn't work. The expected result isn't achieved. The user is picked off. Sorry for the rant. I'll crawl back in my hole. Note this in my "data file" and know that MDK still won't be something I can just hand someone a disk and say "have fun". James
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 06:20 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > > > > This needs a fix. > > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. > > IMHO, localhost.localdomain should *never* be used. The user should be > prompted for a machine name (regardless) once, and > > 1)If on a network with dhcp etc, the network should handle name resolution > 2)If on a network without dhcp etc, zeroconf can do its thing > 3)If and only if no network, do: > > echo -e ?127.0.0.1\\t\\t `hostname`? >> /etc/hosts > I don't think anybody cares the technicalities of how it gets done, just that the installer or the post install config take care of it so the message does not show up anymore. Of course I really didn't mean they don't *care*, just that the point being debated is whether this is a bug that needs to be fixed, somehow. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XK68Gu5uuMFlL5MRAg8zAJ9aLPGGRQGYcsgpzrYFnRolSkv2ogCdGZV7 oYz5ezAoVsQw27i4nY6bqEg= =1yr3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le mer 26/02/2003 à 12:02, Buchan Milne a écrit : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > > > > Yes, this is what i mean. > > I understand that i cannot be hardcoded abruptly. > > But as many users will choose gnome, some of them, e.g. those like me > > without any domain name, will have this error message. I figure last > > time (9.0), the had been many complaints about gnome been so long to > > start ... > > > > This needs a fix. > > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. > > > > In my testing, if no hostname is supplied in /etc/tmdns.conf, then this > is not necessary, see the thread: DHCP Client in Mandrake 9.1 RC1. In > this case, tmdns will provide reverse lookups for the current hostname > (if there is a NIC present which thinks it has a cable attached, not > sure, and cannot test, what happens with no NIC or NIC with no cable). I recall you some details : On my computer, no NIC, no DHCP (i've never heard about tmdns ...), just an RTC connection. So what i report IS a bug in those circumstances, as i've never been prompted in a normal install to provide a network name. Not a matter of opinion/discussion about localhost.localdomain validity, just a fix needed for the end user. Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 12:00pm up 46 days, 23:52, 4 users, load average: 1.09, 1.06, 1.04 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Buchan Milne wrote: > Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > >>Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > > >>This needs a fix. >>If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present >>in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. >> > > > IMHO, localhost.localdomain should *never* be used. The user should be > prompted for a machine name (regardless) once, and (the default entry could be localhost, but *not* localhost.localdomain) > > 1)If on a network with dhcp etc, the network should handle name resolution > 2)If on a network without dhcp etc, zeroconf can do its thing > 3)If and only if no network, do: > > echo -e ?127.0.0.1\\t\\t `hostname`? >> /etc/hosts - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XKZcrJK6UGDSBKcRAjenAKCSqqG6EHiAdn8idWqJiiuY8/iSkgCfbAW4 CtVHAozUMBog82J0iIXzyWE= =NZTU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > This needs a fix. > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. > IMHO, localhost.localdomain should *never* be used. The user should be prompted for a machine name (regardless) once, and 1)If on a network with dhcp etc, the network should handle name resolution 2)If on a network without dhcp etc, zeroconf can do its thing 3)If and only if no network, do: echo -e ?127.0.0.1\\t\\t `hostname`? >> /etc/hosts Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XKLsrJK6UGDSBKcRAtSpAKC3ml0cZS8SizCF0cg1bCOKnRLoNACfaIkr qT0AUzSOWqZncRINyuadEOw= =+fTs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > This needs a fix. > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. Seconded. I've had to fix this problem since the first time I used Mandrake and it's a bad first impression for people who choose a GNOME desktop. -- Reinout van SchouwenArtificial Intelligence student email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mobile phone: +31-6-44360778 GPG public key http://www.cs.vu.nl/~reinout/reinout.asc MandrakeClub member
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > > Yes, this is what i mean. > I understand that i cannot be hardcoded abruptly. > But as many users will choose gnome, some of them, e.g. those like me > without any domain name, will have this error message. I figure last > time (9.0), the had been many complaints about gnome been so long to > start ... > > This needs a fix. > If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present > in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. > In my testing, if no hostname is supplied in /etc/tmdns.conf, then this is not necessary, see the thread: DHCP Client in Mandrake 9.1 RC1. In this case, tmdns will provide reverse lookups for the current hostname (if there is a NIC present which thinks it has a cable attached, not sure, and cannot test, what happens with no NIC or NIC with no cable). Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XJ7SrJK6UGDSBKcRAizWAKCd9e689of+ZG8Zny/qUkprWRAPcQCfWe0E K2E1ParSSwKa/F+EJarzzl8= =rhi4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le mar 25/02/2003 à 14:47, Greg Meyer a écrit : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 08:47 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > > Which is exactly why I said localhost.localdomain *must not* be > > hardcoded into /etc/hosts. > > > > The question is, when should `hostname` get an entry in /etc/hosts > > pointing to the loopback? In a decent network (with dhcp and dns), it is > > not necessary, and could possibly break things? > > > > Without DHCP/DNS, localhost.local should work (with zeroconf). > > > > Maybe the best thing is to not set the hostname to localhost.localdomain > > by default, but rather to localhost (or insist the user set a hostname), > > and let zeroconf do its thing. > > Well whatever the solution is, GNOME won't start without error until I hard > code localhost.localdomain into /etc/hosts. > > This behavior has existed for as long as I can remember. I install mandrake, > start up GNOME, get the error, say to myself, "Oh yeah, forgot about that," > log out, change /etc/hosts, log in and all is hunky dory. > > Here is what the line looks like from my /etc/hosts file. > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost > - -- Yes, this is what i mean. I understand that i cannot be hardcoded abruptly. But as many users will choose gnome, some of them, e.g. those like me without any domain name, will have this error message. I figure last time (9.0), the had been many complaints about gnome been so long to start ... This needs a fix. If no network name is defined, the localhost.localdomain must be present in order to fix the error message and connection into gnome. Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 11:00am up 46 days, 22:52, 4 users, load average: 1.59, 1.49, 1.21 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Le mer 26/02/2003 à 06:33, Steve Fox a écrit : > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 07:47, Greg Meyer wrote: > > > Well whatever the solution is, GNOME won't start without error until I hard > > code localhost.localdomain into /etc/hosts. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] st-perl]$ cat /etc/hosts > 127.0.0.1 tp localhost > > Works fine here Normal, because your domain name is tp ... Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 11:00am up 46 days, 22:52, 4 users, load average: 1.59, 1.49, 1.21 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 07:47, Greg Meyer wrote: > Well whatever the solution is, GNOME won't start without error until I hard > code localhost.localdomain into /etc/hosts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] st-perl]$ cat /etc/hosts 127.0.0.1 tp localhost Works fine here -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Meyer wrote: > Well whatever the solution is, GNOME won't start without error until I hard > code localhost.localdomain into /etc/hosts. Yes, we all know this, we are just trying to find the best solution. > > This behavior has existed for as long as I can remember. I install mandrake, > start up GNOME, get the error, say to myself, "Oh yeah, forgot about that," > log out, change /etc/hosts, log in and all is hunky dory. Then, you change your hostname to myarbname.local, and you have to do it again, but make it not: > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost but: 127.0.0.1 localhost myarbname.local Which explains why the solution is not to hardcode localhost.localdomain in /etc/hosts. Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+W3vjrJK6UGDSBKcRAjR4AKCYAlTW3klEjNg8pT5OWTmv6Iz/VwCdHPis iHLeW4CFTMv0mabKpCl9bq0= =iKQH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 08:47 am, Buchan Milne wrote: > Which is exactly why I said localhost.localdomain *must not* be > hardcoded into /etc/hosts. > > The question is, when should `hostname` get an entry in /etc/hosts > pointing to the loopback? In a decent network (with dhcp and dns), it is > not necessary, and could possibly break things? > > Without DHCP/DNS, localhost.local should work (with zeroconf). > > Maybe the best thing is to not set the hostname to localhost.localdomain > by default, but rather to localhost (or insist the user set a hostname), > and let zeroconf do its thing. Well whatever the solution is, GNOME won't start without error until I hard code localhost.localdomain into /etc/hosts. This behavior has existed for as long as I can remember. I install mandrake, start up GNOME, get the error, say to myself, "Oh yeah, forgot about that," log out, change /etc/hosts, log in and all is hunky dory. Here is what the line looks like from my /etc/hosts file. 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W3PaGu5uuMFlL5MRAjPEAJ42bBzjrCqwL6xrSqE4U6is2E8OVwCff4lA ysnzPI0jCoihuN8+JaFeP8I= =owTV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>Which is wrong. The default hostname for 127.0.0.1 should be >>localhost. Yes. But the default `hostname` can be localhost.localdomain (although localhost may be better) (but, your wording is weird, since we are talking about the hostname of the machine, not the hostname for 127.0.0.1). > >>So GNOME is broken then? No. It is trying to reverse lookup `hostname`, which may be localhost.localdomain, but in my case is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] bgmilne]$ hostname bgmilne.cae.co.za > > Everything that assumes that localhost is called localhost.localdomain is > broken. Read once that RedHat introduced localhost.localdomain sometime, > and it has stuck since. No idea why. > Which is exactly why I said localhost.localdomain *must not* be hardcoded into /etc/hosts. The question is, when should `hostname` get an entry in /etc/hosts pointing to the loopback? In a decent network (with dhcp and dns), it is not necessary, and could possibly break things? Without DHCP/DNS, localhost.local should work (with zeroconf). Maybe the best thing is to not set the hostname to localhost.localdomain by default, but rather to localhost (or insist the user set a hostname), and let zeroconf do its thing. Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+W3PjrJK6UGDSBKcRArjBAJoDhvIk+awcwubQdf2gSQz3pAwjpgCfUWF0 jpJxxuMvHByGWusAHXiGj3c= =1iNR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583 > > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > > > > > localhost.localdomain. > > > Doing it in the install process would be *even* more broken. It should > > be done in the network init scripts, so that an entry for 127.0.0.1 is > > made for the output of hostname (which is what GNOME, and many other > > things, look for). localhost.localdomain just happens to be the > > default > > hostname. > > Which is wrong. The default hostname for 127.0.0.1 should be localhost. > May be, but it would allow gnome to start up without complaining about this entry missing ! Stef *~~* Linux 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 1:00pm up 46 days, 52 min, 3 users, load average: 1.02, 1.03, 1.00 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Sitat Greg Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:38 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Doing it in the install process would be *even* more broken. It > should > > > > > > > > > be done in the network init scripts, so that an entry for 127.0.0.1 > is > > > > > > > > > made for the output of hostname (which is what GNOME, and many > other > > > > > > > > > things, look for). localhost.localdomain just happens to be the > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > hostname. > > > > Which is wrong. The default hostname for 127.0.0.1 should be > localhost. > > So GNOME is broken then? Everything that assumes that localhost is called localhost.localdomain is broken. Read once that RedHat introduced localhost.localdomain sometime, and it has stuck since. No idea why. Sebastian
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:38 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Doing it in the install process would be *even* more broken. It should > > > > > > be done in the network init scripts, so that an entry for 127.0.0.1 is > > > > > > made for the output of hostname (which is what GNOME, and many other > > > > > > things, look for). localhost.localdomain just happens to be the > > > > > > default > > > > > > hostname. > > Which is wrong. The default hostname for 127.0.0.1 should be localhost. So GNOME is broken then? - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W2WHGu5uuMFlL5MRAtS9AJ9FP1ypJW3rG+ro4sDRvKwcxnuylwCfRUIL +Hg0Y/cM2yRNsjkBRnQX1UY= =ELUA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
Sitat Buchan Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > > https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583 > > > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > > localhost.localdomain. > > > > There has already been a discussion about this point, but it is not > > fixed. > > > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install > process > > ... > > > > Doing it in the install process would be *even* more broken. It should > be done in the network init scripts, so that an entry for 127.0.0.1 is > made for the output of hostname (which is what GNOME, and many other > things, look for). localhost.localdomain just happens to be the > default > hostname. Which is wrong. The default hostname for 127.0.0.1 should be localhost. Sebastian
Re: [Cooker] Bug 1583 not taken into account ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Teletchéa Stéphane wrote: > https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583 > > I think these entries are missing in /etc/hosts : > localhost.localdomain. > > There has already been a discussion about this point, but it is not > fixed. > > Unless this line, gnome fails to load correctly. > > I did a fresh install everytime, so it is missing in the install process > ... > Doing it in the install process would be *even* more broken. It should be done in the network init scripts, so that an entry for 127.0.0.1 is made for the output of hostname (which is what GNOME, and many other things, look for). localhost.localdomain just happens to be the default hostname. Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+W05TrJK6UGDSBKcRAuTrAJ0Va0d2SEVMyqbsmLlXL6kGHEaWbgCgsQet quchQ93dNDGVIf+EsRtwVDE= =1Yub -END PGP SIGNATURE-
