On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 19:35, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anthony F McInerney writes:
> Note that the selected mode of operation for this file is detected
> fully automatically, depending on whether /etc/resolv.conf is a symlink to
> /run/systemd/resolve/resolv.conf or lists 127.0.0.53 as DNS server.
Again: why does anything have to be "detected fully automatically"?
We've had a mechanism for controlling symlinks for an eternity:
alternatives.
I cannot see any valid technical argument against having /etc/resolv.conf
managed by alternatives. If systemd-resolved wishes to have the highest
alternatives priority, and thus ends up being the resolver by default,
that's fine.
Does anyone have an argument /against/ having /etc/resolv.conf managed via
alternatives? What can't you do with alternatives that you can with the
current ham-fisted approach, where someone has to go out of their way to
figure out how to switch to network manager-provided resolv.conf?
Can someone explain why systemd-resolved needs to symlink /etc/resolv.conf to 4(or more) different places, instead of just having those 'detected things' as options in /etc/systemd/resolved.conf ?
Also spotted this on the Arch Wiki
"systemd-resolved will work out of the box with a network manager using
/etc/resolv.conf. No particular configuration is required since systemd-resolved will be detected by following the /etc/resolv.conf symlink. This is going to be the case with systemd-networkd or NetworkManager."_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
