Re: nsswitch.conf again

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

 



On 18/07/2021 12:31, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
On 18/07/2021 11.18, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
This was brought up before, but today again it bit me. There was a glibc update (fc34)
which provides a new nsswitch.conf with this line
     hosts:      files myhostname resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns
which caused all the aliases I had for my server to fail because my local dns was not looked up.

Had to again remove the '[!UNAVAIL=return]' stanza.

Is this issue being fixed? I found this
     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717384
which suggests nsswitch.conf will become a fedora file (not glibc) and hopefully better, but this log
has now been open for a long time.

Regards

Thanks for the workarounds proposed, and ATM some such are needed, but what I am after is
finding out what permanent solution is planned for fedora.

Sadly, I already use a number of scripts to deal with personal preferences and alike,
and I understand that not all of my needs will ever be provided by the distributed
packages (and their configurations).


My second question to you is how did you modify nsswitch.conf?

I asked this, since I'm sure I was doing some testing in this area sometime back.  Maybe it relation to your
issues.

Anyway, thaf file contains

#hosts:      files myhostname mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns
hosts:      files myhostname mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] resolve dns
#hosts:      files myhostname mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] resolve [!UNAVAI=ret
urn] dns


I modified that file based on the instructions contained in the file.

# If you want to make changes to nsswitch.conf please modify
# /etc/authselect/user-nsswitch.conf and run 'authselect apply-changes'.

The owner of that file is glibc.

glibc was recently updated.

[root@f34k2 etc]# dnf history glibc
ID     | Command line                | Date and time    | Action(s)      | Altered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    40 | -y --refresh update         | 2021-07-15 03:23 | Upgrade        |   84  <
    19 | -y --refresh update         | 2021-06-21 12:18 | ?, E, I, O, U  |  172 ><

And the file remained unchanged.

So, I am wondering if you're doing something a bit differently?




--
Remind me to ignore comments which aren't germane to the thread.

_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux