Tim via users writes:
On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 20:57 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > This is quite missing my point. I'm not interested in _arguing_ at > all. The point is: your hyperbole about "hijacking" and etc. is not > appropriate. This is an intentional, discussed, and approved change > that went through the proper processes. When one service interferes with another, hijacking seems like exactly the right descriptive term to use.
Help me out here: wasn't there a point of order made, way back when: hey, if you want to disable systemd-resolved, just manually replace the /etc/resolv.conf symlink?
I have a vivid recollection of that.But the latest systemd-resolved update force-updates the /etc/resolv.conf symlink, even if it was manually overridden.
> It's fine for you to discuss the technical aspects — and even the > "merits", as you said. But if that's what you want to do, do that. > Several years ago, all of the vitriol and trolling on this list got > so bad we had to shut down pretty much every systemd discussion. > Let's not go back to that. Sounds like several cases of: Can't take criticism. I am never wrong. Won't back down.
And I did make an attempt to have a discussion on the merits: specifically how Ubuntu's systemd usage was offered as a supporting argument. But, looking at an actual Ubuntu server next to me, I discovered this is not what ended up happening in Fedora.
Now, after a brief retrospective, perhaps my choice of words was a little bit too blunt, so I'll try to moderate it. I just keep making the same mistake, over and over again. I, personally, never get bothered when someone flames the crap out of me, or my warez. As they say: sticks and stones. I just don't know why I should, and my mistake is assuming that noone else gives a crap what I mouth off, either. So, why should I care much about what comes out of my mouth? Who cares? Well, apparently, people do. So be it.
So, there must be a good reason why the systemd-resolved now forcefully resets the /etc/resolv.conf symlink back to itself. The cited Bugzilla entry says something about the /etc/resolv.conf being missing after a fresh install, or something like that. I forget the exact situation where that happened. But as far as I can tell, the package's scriptlet also explicitly checks if the symlink exists, but points elsewhere, and "corrects" that too. I emphasize: the scriptlet checks if the symlink is missing, if so it gets created. That's right on target. But then, if the sysmlink exists, then another check is made, and it still gets reset. I couldn't immediately figure out why it did that.
And then it's still bothers me how systemd-resolved hooks /etc/nsswitch.conf, how that's not publicized very well, either; and how exciting this becomes when, after, a systemd-resolved update, it breaks for whatever reason.
Attachment:
pgpqorfvEaEuz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
