Re: [PATH] Support resolvconf

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 03:49 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 01:01 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> For the domain/search tweakage: I feel unsure about this (though I kept
> >> this part of your patch untouched for now). This is quite a specific
> >> feature you want to implicitly entrench here. Maybe we can push
> >> that back until we know if and how we want to implement such a
> >> feature?
> > 
> > There's no real need to push it back.
> > NM currently folds domain into searches, so there's no need to actually
> > use domain at all.
> Hi Roy,
> I agree with Alex here.
> Could you please split up the patch into two, so we can address those
> two issues separately.
> I think the resolvconf part is fine.
> Dan, if you are ok with it also, I'd be going to commit this, unless you
> beat me to it ;-)

It looks OK, except for one change.  Not sure where we left the
conversation last, but I'm not sure if just because resolvconf is
installed means that it's actually being used.  Most of the time you can
have a package installed, but you don't have to enable it.  For the
moment, I'd suggest either (1) #ifdef-ing the resolvconf specific stuff
with #ifdef DEBIAN, or (2) adding a configure switch for
--with-resolv-conf=yes which would #define USE_RESOLVCONF, and then
protect the resolvconf stuff with #ifdef USE_RESOLVCONF.

> For the domain/search changes, I'd like to take a separate look.

Agreed, though I think the behavior change here is just to make searches
> domain, while right now it's the other way around.  I'm not exactly
sure whether that's the right thing to do but we should probably be
following the current standards and doing backwards-compat as the
fallback unless there's a major problem.


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