It looks to me as if the quoted code will fail to stop and restart, but
it shouldn't fail to start.
In any case, the code in upstart 1.4 looks rather different.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
Public bug reported:
Stopping the resolvconf job should disable updates by means of deleting
the enable-updates flag file, but this does not happen.
# ls -l /run/resolvconf
total 4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2012-02-16 17:02 enable-updates
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 60 2012-02-16 17:02 interface
-rw
I wrote:
> The following change seems to fix this.
But don't make that change, because then updates are not enabled after
reboot!
(rebooted)
# ls -l /run/resolvconf
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 60 2012-02-16 17:12 interface/
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2012-02-16 17:12 postponed-update
-rw-r--r
Regarding my question, see also
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/resolvconf/+bug/933566/comments/1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/929552
Title:
Upgrade of resolvconf from 1.6
Here's a simpler test case which shows the pre-stop script not being
run.
# status foo
foo stop/waiting
# cat /etc/init/foo.conf
description "Foo"
pre-start script
touch /run/foo
end script
pre-stop script
rm -f /run/foo
end script
# ls -l /run/foo
ls: cannot access /run/foo: No
> until we know why resolvconf is failing to start for you on boot
We know that the resolvconf job starts, otherwise /run/resolvconf
wouldn't exist. The problem is that the job also get stopped.
I added touch commands to the scripts which show this.
-
Yes, I think that Debian bug report #483098 gives the background
information needed to understand what's going on here.
Bind9 should certainly not by default send its (loopback) address to
resolvconf. Bind9 should only send its address to resolvconf if it is
known that named can provide general D
I actually upgraded to 1.4-0ubuntu7 yesterday so when I look in
/var/log/upstart/resolvconf.log now I see the results of several
reboots: yes, there they are, repeated instances of:
cp: cannot create regular file `/var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf':
Read-only file system^M
run-parts: /et
> Thomas, is there any chance that you have postfix installed
> in the environment where you're seeing the resolvconf job
> fail at boot?
Yes, postfix was installed and was causing the resolvconf job to fail at boot.
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/resolvconf/+bug/933566/comments/
So the answer to my question (#16) was that the resolvconf Upstart job
was failing to start at boot time because of #927803.
The misbehavior reported here (#929552) occurs post-boot so I am
doubtful that it has the same cause.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubu
I installed postfix 2.8.7-1ubuntu1. It still causes the resolvconf job
to fail at boot.
$ status resolvconf
resolvconf stop/waiting
$ dpkg -l postfix|grep ^ii
ii postfix
2.8.7-1ubuntu1 High-per
Regarding comment #29: Report #933723 was traced to a bug in bind9 --
different issue from the one here (#923685).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923685
Title:
Installing resolvconf
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Conceptually, I think there's no reason not to use
> post-stop since the post-stop script is run before
> the stopped event is emitted, so I'll go ahead with
> committing this fix [...]
Using post-stop has the consequence that any error during the resolvconf update
run in
An alternative might be to use post-start (whose exit status is ignored)
so long as we use post-stop.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933566
Title:
Stopping resolvconf doesn't disable
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 929552 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/929552
asbenicio: Is this behavior reproducible? What if you upgrade from
11.10?
We need more information before we can make any progress with this bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
$ sudo aptitude install lyx
File | New from Template | aa.lyx results in this dialog:
The layout file requested by this document,
aa.layout,
is not usable. This is probably because a LaTeX
class or style file required by it is not
available. See the Customization documenta
The line "nameserver 127.0.1.1" in resolv.conf strongly suggests that
you are using NetworkManager which is running a local forwarding
nameserver — an instance of the dnsmasq program — listening at IP
address 127.0.1.1. NetworkManager is responsible for obtaining addresses
of nameservers and giving
** Description changed:
This is a wishlist item.
- I'd like to use DNSSEC for dnsmasq out of the box. Currently support for
- DNSSEC appears to be disabled at compile time: if I add "dnssec" options
- to the dnsmasq.conf, it doesn't accept the configuration. I'm using
- Ubuntu Trusty.
+ I'd l
Trusty has dnsmasq 2.68-1. Looking at the buildlog I don't see
HAVE_DNSSEC being defined on the compiler command line.
gcc -g -O2 -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wall -W -DHAVE_DBUS
-DHAVE_CONNTRACK -DLOCALEDIR='"/usr/share/loca
Best to submit this wish to the Debian bug tracking system so that
Debian will also benefit from this enhancement.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1485316
Title:
dnsmasq breaks DNS, if
Public bug reported:
The following versions of resolvconf have a postinst that runs "update-
rc.d resolvconf defaults".
* 1.77ubuntu1 YES
* 1.76ubuntu1 in Vivid 15.04 YES
* 1.69ubuntu4 in Utopic 14.10 YES
* 1.69ubuntu1.1 in Trusty-updates YES
* 1.69ubuntu1 in Trusty 14.04 YES
* 1.63ubuntu16 in Pr
Hmm, well I don't think that this bug report is "incomplete". We know
what the problem is. What is unfinished is the implementation of the
solution.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/116314
@Seth: Unless you prefer to drop the matter entirely, I'd suggest you
edit the bug description to say exactly what it is that you want, as you
know see it. This isn't very clear in the original posting, and after
re-reading many of the comments above I don't feel I have a completely
clear picture o
Should this be reassigned to network-manager-openvpn?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1430077
Title:
[vivid] VPN connection breaks /etc/resolv.conf
To manage notifications about this
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to resolve private names in networks wi
> Now, it is being pushed instead to /etc/resolv.conf.
>
> nameserver 10.99.244.1
> nameserver 127.0.1.1
>
> [...]
> Connecting to the VPN also pushes search paths to /etc/resolv.conf -
> overriding the search
> domains that I have already configured, and which should take precedence.
Is this b
This bears a suspicious similarity to the behavior reported in the
AskUbuntu question #631810.
http://askubuntu.com/questions/631810
Are you running a local nameserver such as dnsmasq from the dnsmasq
package? Is there a nameserver listening at 127.0.0.1?
--
You received this bug notificati
Michel, is this bug now fixed?
** Changed in: network-manager-openconnect (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1300097
Title:
NetworkManager
Michael, have you made any progress in figuring out the cause of this
bug?
** Changed in: network-manager-openconnect (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchp
Does this bug still affect anyone?
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/434477
Title:
Nameserver addresses 4.
A workaround may be to edit /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf and
comment out the line "dns=dnsmasq".
** Description changed:
- Using a laptop with a hardware switch for enable/disable WLAN.
- Connected to two different LANs using DHCP on ETH/WLAN.
+ I have a laptop with a hardware switch t
** Summary changed:
- Nameresolution not working using openconnect
+ Name resolution not working using openconnect
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1311308
Title:
Name resolution not w
** Summary changed:
- network-manager dnsmasq openvpn DNS issue
+ network-manager does not configure local resolver or dnsmasq to use the
nameserver addresses received from the VPN server
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubunt
Just to note that nowadays, e.g., in 1.76ubuntu1, Ubuntu also does
`dh_installinit --no-start`.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085862
Title:
#DEBHELPER# token is in the wrong place,
@Cs-gon: Do you have any problem with resolvconf 1.76ubuntu1?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392297
Title:
resolvconf 1.69ubuntu1.1 breaks network install
To manage notifications ab
In the Debian postinst there is a case clause at the end whose purpose
is to enable updates. In Debian this is done by means of a trigger.
resolvconf 1.77
[...]
case "$1" in
reconfigure)
resolvconf --enable-updates
;;
configure)
@Martin: My previous comment raced with your release of 1.76.1ubuntu2.
Looks good.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1453185
Title:
resolvconf: updates are not enabled right after instal
@Martin: Ubuntu resolvconf 1.76.1ubuntu2 includes the trigger-sending
and trigger-processing section at the end of the postinst but fails to
include the debian/triggers file from Debian. Without this file the
resolvconf package doesn't register an interest in the trigger
resolvconf-enable-updates.
I'd like to comment on the remaining differences between Debian
resolvconf and Ubuntu resolvconf.
Besides the extensive source-textual differences arising from Debian's
use of /etc/resolvconf/run versus Ubuntu's direct use of
/run/resolvconf, I see only three substantial differences.
1. The omiss
The indirection via /etc/resolvconf/run dates from the era before /run/.
I introduced resolvconf in 2003 as part of a larger effort to make it
possible to run Debian with a read-only root filesystem[1] but the
project to introduce the /run/ tmpfs into Debian base failed due to lack
of consensus abo
Yep, I see that debian/triggers is present in 1.77ubuntu1, and when I
install the package I see the report of the trigger being processed.
Thx! P.S. Is there something we should do to silence those insserv
warnings?
$ sudo dpkg -i resolvconf_1.77ubuntu1_all.deb
(Reading database ... 282465 files
Yay.
We may now get a complaint from someone who has deleted the symlink at
/etc/resolv.conf but still has resolvconf installed and relies upon
dhclient updating /etc/resolv.conf dynamically. Their problem:
/etc/resolv.conf is no longer updated after resolvconf is upgraded to
1.77ubuntu1. Solution
Fixed upstream in resolvconf 1.77.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Debian)
Status: In Progress => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1446681
Title:
resolvconf interface-or
Fixed in resolvconf 1.77ubuntu1.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1446681
Title:
resolvconf interface-order
debian/templates in 1.77ubuntu1:
[...]
Template: resolvconf/link-tail-to-original
Type: boolean
Default: false
[...]
debian/changelog in 1.77ubuntu1:
[...]
- resolvconf/link-tail-to-original debconf question again defaults to
false; it's rather irrelevant as we install resolvconf by defa
@Cs-gon: Can you reproduce this problem (bug #1392297) with resolvconf
1.77ubuntu1?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392297
Title:
resolvconf 1.69ubuntu1.1 breaks network install
To m
Fixed in 1.77ubuntu1.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1279760
Title:
Resolvconf creates /etc/resolvconf/res
This was fixed in some release prior to 1.77ubuntu1.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085849
Title:
Please
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392297
Title:
resolvconf 1.69ubuntu1.1 breaks network install
To manage noti
Resolvconf 1.77ubuntu1's debian/rules runs dh_installinit with `--no-
start` and so there is no longer a `invoke-rc.d resolvconf start` (which
wipes runtime directories) in debian/postinst. To enable resolvconf
updates, postinst simply does "resolvconf --enable-updates".
If `invoke-rc.d resolvconf
You know, I didn't even look closely at those warnings. Duh. Now that I
read them I see that I am being warned that I have runlevel symlinks in
1 2 3 4 5. Those aren't supposed to be there! (I run Ubuntu 15.04
upgraded from 14.04 originally.) What the aytch-e-double-hockey-stick?
Consider the hist
Continuing with my investigation of how a default symlink field got
created for resolvconf on my machine... (What I am calling a 'default
symlink field' is the set of symlinks /etc/rc[1-5].d/S??resolvconf ->
../init.d/resolvconf as would be created by "update-rc.d resolvconf
defaults" with update-r
Christian, the workaround is to comment out the line "dns=dnsmasq" in
/etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003842
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes fails to
Hi there and thanks for your report.
I don't see any evidence here of a bug in resolvconf. There is most
probably something wrong with your machine's configuration. So this
report should be reassigned to something else... or closed if the
configuration shortcomings are purely local. Where did you
Is the resolvconf package even installed?
Assuming it is, why doesn't it get called when the interfaces are
configured?
Can things be changed so that resolvconf does get called in the normal
way when interfaces are configured? (The "normal way" and all other
things resolvconf are explained in /u
Here is a rough draft, untested, of a script that would be run once in
the main boot sequence in order to bring the resolvconf database up to
date. The main difference from your script is that it sends the info to
resolvconf instead of writing directly to resolv.conf. (I am assuming
that /etc/resol
Sorry, I no longer own the laptop where I had the problem.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1044955
Title:
Xorg.log contains "BUG: triggered 'if (!dev->valuator ||
dev->valuator->numA
** Description changed:
The following resolver options have been implemented in Ubuntu eglibc
(but not Debian eglibc) but are not mentioned in resolv.conf(5).
- use-vc
- no-tld-query
+ use-vc
+ no-tld-query
- (The option 'single-request-reopen' is also not mention
Not yet fixed in manpages 3.74-1ubuntu1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1110781
Title:
resolv.conf(5) fails to mention some options
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
http
First a parenthetical remark. According to interfaces(5) the "manual"
keyword is used exclusively in the "method" field, as in `iface eth0
inet manual`. But in your example you use it at the beginning of a line.
Perhaps you think that in that context "manual" means the opposite of
"auto" (non-auto?
I just tried to reproduce the bug in Ubuntu 14.10 by editing the file
/etc/network/interfaces to look like the following (complete with bogus
"manual" line).
# interfaces(5) file used by ifup(8) and ifdown(8)
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
manual eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
dns-nameservers 1.2.3.4
d
** Summary changed:
- resolvconf not updated correctly for interfaces configured in initramfs
+ resolv.conf not updated correctly for interfaces configured in initramfs
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.laun
Dnsmasq treats all nameservers as equivalent (except insofar as it is
instructed to use particular nameservers to resolve names in particular
domains).
The C library resolver, on the other hand, tries one nameserver at a
time in the order that their addresses are listed in resolv.conf.
If you mus
@Franck: See bug #1003842 for information about using dnsmasq with non-
equivalent upstream nameservers.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1231893
Title:
dnsmasq sometimes lose primary
Fixed in 2.67, not in 2.66.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1203430
Title:
dnsmasq doesn't listen on a given 127.* listen-address if bind-
dynamic, interface and except-interface opt
I see that a lot of work has been done to get this change into precise,
but it is not clear to me what the status of this change is for raring
and saucy.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/4
> I just tried Trusty (dnsmasq 2.68-1), and network manager ships
> /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager with:
>
> bind-interfaces
>
> So now dnsmasq only binds 127.0.0.1 for its tftp service:
>
> udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:69 0.0.0.0:* 954/dnsmasq
> udp6 0 0 ::1:69 :::* 954/dnsmasq
>
> ...and of
We certainly don't want to run "resolvconf -u" too few times. That is
the bug.
It causes no logical malfunction to run "resolvconf -u" too many times,
but doing so is not efficient. When a resolvconf update occurs then all
the scripts in /etc/resolvconf/update.d/ get run. If a "heavy" update
scrip
This issue is being addressed at http://askubuntu.com/questions/368435 .
** Description changed:
Since I have upgraded to 13.10, my notebook can not resolve host names.
I expect DNS servers received by DHCP to be written into
- /etc/resolf.conf which is not the case.
+ /etc/resolv.conf whi
Dnsmasq gets its nameserver addresses from resolvconf via the file
/var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf. That /etc/resolv.conf contains only
127.0.0.1 is correct.
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
You don't need to set `listen-address=127.0.0.1` in /etc/dnsmasq.conf;
dnsmasq listens on that address by default.
If dnsmasq is not being used then you have a nonstandard configuration.
If you do not need a nonstandard configuration then I suggest that you
purge the dnsmasq package and reinstall
How do you rule out this being VirtualBox's fault?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1228955
Title:
dnsmasq changeds virtualbox guests PTR queries into A queries
To manage notifications
Hi Bar,
I can reproduce the behavior: Debian 7 in VM with NATted network
interface on VirtualBox 4.2.16 on Ubuntu 13.04 with the NetworkManager-
controlled dnsmasq instance running. Using wireshark on the host I see
127.0.1.1 receiving an A query instead of a PTR query.
** Package changed: dnsmas
It looks to me as if the purpose of that code is to detect the host DNS
configuration. The section labeled with the comment "Modern Ubuntu
register 127.0.1.1 as DNS server" seems to be executed in case a
loopback address other than the classic 127.0.0.1 is found on a
"nameserver " line in resolv.co
** Summary changed:
- dnsmasq changeds virtualbox guests PTR queries into A queries
+ When using host resolver, VirtualBox forwards a PTR query as an A query
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/b
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 366967 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/366967
Please post your /etc/network/interfaces.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/448095
Title:
resolv
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Seth Arnold <1163...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Your dnsmasq-A, dnsmasq-B, dnsmasq-C daisy-chain approach could probably
> work. But guest VMs or guest LXC domains that are using dnsmasq-B couldn't
> then look up hosts registered with dnsmasq-C.
Yes, it's a chara
Seth, the ball is in your court, I think. Try both approaches and see
how well either or both of them works.
I have favored the daisy-chain approach for the reasons given in comment
#27 and because I can easily see how to support that approach using
resolvconf such that it just works(tm) when pack
This report was originally filed against network-manager and I
reassigned it to network-manager-openvpn under the assumption that the
submitter is using NetworkManager and network-manager-openvpn to
configure and control the VPN. Is that the case for everyone who has
commented above? Does anyone wh
This bug still exists even though NM now communicates with dnsmasq over
D-Bus.
Aug 25 21:31:33 sanrife dnsmasq[7027]: using nameserver 192.168.1.254#53
Aug 25 21:31:33 sanrife dnsmasq[7027]: using nameserver 192.168.1.254#53
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
** Summary changed:
- NM-vpnc fails to process second nameserver address
+ NetworkManager receives two VPN nameserver addresses but sends only one to
dnsmasq
** Also affects: network-manager-openvpn (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification beca
The submitter Oscar wrote in the original description:
> If I comment out dns=dnsmasq in NetworkManager.conf and
> restart NetworkManager all DNS start to work properly again,
> VPN DNS's are used for those resources on the VPN network
> and others through my default DNS.
Oscar, I don't know how t
P.S. Oscar, and everyone else who has commented, please say what version
of network-manager-openvpn you are using.
I have just done some testing. I have the following package versions.
network-manager 0.9.8.0-0ubuntu17
network-manager-dev 0.9.8.0-0ubuntu6
network
In bug #1169437 the submitter reports that "Additional DNS servers"
included for the VPN connection are not sent to dnsmasq. I can confirm
this.
Without "dns=dnsmasq", the additional addresses do get sent to
resolvconf, however, and turn up in resolv.conf.
--
You received this bug notification b
** Changed in: network-manager-openvpn (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1169437
Title:
network-manager dnsmasq openvpn DNS issue
To mana
Jérôme, can you please see if clear-on-reload fixes the problem,
without no-negcache?
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/117
Jérôme, it's nice to hear that it is working correctly, but which of the
following is the case?
1. Dnsmasq is working correctly in the standard factory configuration.
2. It is working with no-negcache mode activated.
3. It is working with clear-on-reload mode activated.
4. It is working and the
Public bug reported:
The "order" option in /etc/host.conf has been inoperative for years. It
should no longer be included in host.conf on new installs.
In Debian 7 the "order" line is no longer included.
In Ubuntu 12.04:
$ cat /etc/host.conf
# The "order" line is only used by old versions of t
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1042275 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1042275
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1042275
Please enhance dnsmasq to talk directly to resolvconf and to register only
its actual listening address(es)
--
You received this bug notification
** Package changed: resolvconf (Ubuntu) => dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1516329
Title:
DNS BUG delay resolution of LAN DNS
To manage notifications about this bug g
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Expired => New
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1473727
Title:
No
> I put it to you that this design is defective if it does not consider
this important use case.
If that is an important use case then of course it should be supported.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.laun
Can you please try to figure out what part of the resolvconf postrm
script is yielding the exit status 128?
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bu
The original problem was fixed in resolvconf 1.70 which has since been
merged to Vivid.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1110331
Title:
nscd no longer needs to be restarted by libc's resolvconf upd
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349011
Title:
nm-l2tp-service needs exception in ppp ip-up/down scripts
Not fixed in 1.76ubuntu1.
debian/templates in 1.76ubuntu1:
[...]
Template: resolvconf/link-tail-to-original
Type: boolean
Default: true
[...]
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1279760
Tit
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392297
Title:
resolvconf 1.69ubuntu1.1 breaks network install
To manage notificatio
> It might make sense to combine these as @(br|eth) as is done with the
wifi.
Good idea. I'll make this change in the next Debian resolvconf.
** Changed in: resolvconf (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which i
Try this.
lo.inet6
lo.inet
lo.@(dnsmasq|pdnsd)
lo.!(pdns|pdns-recursor)
lo
tun*
tap*
hso*
em+([0-9])?(_+([0-9]))*
p+([0-9])p+([0-9])?(_+([0-9]))*
@(br|eth)*([^.]).inet6
@(br|eth)*([^.]).ip6.@(dhclient|dhcpcd|pump|udhcpc)
@(br|eth)*([^.]).inet
@(br|eth)*([^.]).@(dhclient|dhcpcd|pump|udhcpc)
@(br|et
201 - 300 of 3374 matches
Mail list logo
