Michael Hennebry writes:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022, Samuel Sieb wrote:The benefits have been well explained. The problem is that some people really don't like change even if it's for the better. And sometimes things do break when changed and instead of finding out why it breaks and how to fix, they just say how terrible the new software is and that it should never have been used.Nyet. OP was not complaining about change. OP was complaining about his inability to change his system.
Not quite. The initial complaint was that a systemd update broke DNS lookups. This was surprising, because on that system systemd-resolved was purportedly disabled by redirecting the /etc/resolv.conf link, which was originally presented as the way to disable it. Subsequently, it was established that:
1) The updated systemd-resolved package now force-replaces the symlink2) Even if the symlink is manually adjusted again, DNS resolution is still non-functional because systemd-resolved is also hooked via nsswitch.conf.
3) The bug that was referenced as the reason for changing the scriptlet appears to be because the /etc/resolv.conf was missing in some edge cases, and the scriptlet did check to see if it doesn't exist and creates it. Except that it also checks if it does exist, and then it gets force-replaced to point to systemd-resolved. I couldn't find an explanation for that.
I also don't recall the reason for nsswitch.conf hook. Playing devil's advocate: I can think of one technical reason, but I see no point in speculating. Instead of explaining this, the merits of the original Fedora change proposal were referenced, which – I don't recall to what extent the actual technical merits were listed, I only remember its main argument: well, it's enabled in Ubuntu.
Inspecting a fresh Ubuntu 20 install that I had here I discovered that, yes, it's running systemd-resolved, but it's not hooked in nsswitch.conf.
What also rubs a little bit of the wrong way is that the nsswitch module is called "resolve". It wasn't apparent that it came from systemd. "resolve" is very generic, after all, who can suspect an innocent module named "resolve", as the culprit for non-functional DNS resolution? It should've been called "systemd".
OP did discover the reason. OP discovered the reason was systemd code apparently designed to frustrate just that change. OP's complaint was not about systemd generally, 'twas about a single rather awful policy decision. What would a systemd evangelist suggest as a minimal workaround?
Well, the suggestion seems to be: remove systemd-resolved if it doesn't work for you.
Which is an entirely fair proposition right now.I'll just make a friendly wager: 100 quatloos that either systemd or some other core component will depend on systemd-resolved in Fedora 40, and there will be no way to remove it; and by Fedora 45 it'll probably be unmaskable.
Attachment:
pgpbO8dJaxjNz.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
