On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:33 PM Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Todd Zullinger writes: > > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > [...snip loads of useful information...] > > > So, I think if you: > > > > > > disable systemd-resolved > > > > To that end, the change proposal¹ when systemd-resolved was > > enabled by default (F33) contains an example of how to > > ensure the service remains disabled -- which would avoid the > > situation Sam had where it got installed due to a dependency > > chain and then started because the preset enables it. > > Well, if it was installed due to a dependency, then it would be reasonably > expected that whatever declared it as a dependency required a working > systemd-resolved. After all, why declare it as a dependency, otherwise? I could see this behavior as a default. Folks who need systemd-resolved (but appear to be missing it) have it automatically installed to help keep their system running. That is, the system is trying to help folks who are less savvy than you. I guess what the logic or script is missing (the one Kevin detailed) is, what to do if NetworkManager is installed and running. That seems like where the problem occured in your case. In your case (and others like you), it seems like the condition 'NetworkManager is installed and running' should foreclose on installing and running systemd-resolved. Jeff -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
