Re: [patch] Support Debian's resolvconf

On 7/29/05, Colin Walters <walters verbum org> wrote:

> I don't really see the value in extra indirection through resolvconf
> unless it actually solves some real-world problem that users care about.
> If you can come up with one, great; we can discuss implementation
> details in solving that problem using resolvconf versus NetworkManager
> plugins versus whatever.

Hmm. Thinking back, the  reason I first looked into this was the
following sequence of events:

1) I had resolvconf already installed.

2) I installed NetworkManager through Ubuntu's Multiverse repo. The
package had a dependency on resolvconf, btw (although this is clearly
an error on the part of the packager).

3) That version of NetworkManager simply did not work (no offense,
current CVS works great), and so I eventually removed it.

4) Ifup-ing my network resulted in no name service because the symlink
had been replaced with an empty file. No problem to fix once, but it
got annoying as I went through several iterations of starting NM,
stopping it, and bringing up my network manually so I could research
the problem.

It never actually occured to me to simply remove the resolvconf
package. In my mind, resolvconf has become "The Way it Works" rather
than a tool to deal with special configurations.

So the added value here is the removal of a potential failure case
(and one that I'm sure others will hit) when NetworkManager is stopped
or removed. NetworkManager is supposed to be friendly, and I feel that
includes doing everything it can to avoid causing breakage even in the
face of operator error (if you want to insist that using NM with
resolvconf is an error).

Now, one could say that the real solution here is for Debian/Ubuntu
packages of NetworkManager to Conflict: with resolvconf. But playing
nice with resolvconf is so easy, I just don't understand the objection
to it.
> > And because I actually do run caching nameservers on some of my other
> > systems, and like to keep things as similar as possible across my
> > machines.
> This confuses me - NetworkManager does contain a caching nameserver.
> Are you talking about making your NetworkManager machines similar to
> machines which currently don't run NM?  Or something else?

The former. My laptop is the only machine that runs NM. All my
machines have resolvconf.

Will Dyson

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]