hello
maybe this will will serve
http://www.lampnode.com/linux/howto-setup-nameserver-on-ubuntu-1404-by-resolvconf/
regards
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1247803
This likely needs to go into an SRU for Precise and get fixed in Trusty
and Utopic.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1247803
Title:
dnsmasq temporarily breaks DNS
** Branch linked: lp:~philip-g-potter/dnsmasq/conditionally-update-
resolvconf
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1247803
Title:
dnsmasq temporarily breaks DNS
Thanks for your reply, Thomas. I now agree that it is the maintainer's
choice as to which of the proposed implementations should be used. I've
made a separate branch with the more complex conditional and attached it
to this ticket.
What's the next step? I'm new to the whole ubuntu package
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
script is
I don't really understand why we need to add a conditional at all. It's
always safe to run resolvconf -u one time too many; but running it one
time too few will introduce subtle bugs (like this one).
The proposed conditional only suppresses running resolvconf -u if
ENABLED=1 and resolvconf is not
On 09/11/13 19:07, Philip Potter wrote:
I agree that the postinst is a better place than the init script to run
resolvconf -u.
I'm not sure that it should be conditional on IGNORE_RESOLVCONF though -
given that the update script will be run next time anything touches
resolvconf, what's to be
Hmm, good questions . /me thinks.
The (small) gain is that we omit an unneeded update run prior to the
update run that occurs shortly afterwards when the dnsmasq initscript
calls resolvconf.
When other things touch resolvconf the update run can't be omitted.
We don't want to skip the update
** Branch linked: lp:~philip-g-potter/dnsmasq/update-resolvconf
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1247803
Title:
dnsmasq temporarily breaks DNS resolution when
I agree that the postinst is a better place than the init script to run
resolvconf -u.
I'm not sure that it should be conditional on IGNORE_RESOLVCONF though -
given that the update script will be run next time anything touches
resolvconf, what's to be gained by not running it in the postinst?
When the dnsmasq package is installed its postinst starts the dnsmasq
daemon via the initscript. Dnsmasq initially reads what is most probably
an empty file from /var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf and so initially can't
resolve names. (The file is probably empty because it is generated by
11 matches
Mail list logo
