Thanks, that is exactly the message I wanted to tell.
Perhaps I should keep corner cases to myself until someone actually hits
them. It has clearly confused people and created unnecessary reactions.
Conflict will arise only when configuration change done by administrator
were not complete.
On 16. 01. 24 10:18, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 05:31:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Petr Menšík wrote:
Anyway, dnsmasq will listen by default on 127.0.0.1, as every standard
resolver does. You can use listen-address=127.0.0.53 if you like, but
then it will conflict with systemd-resolved.
You just wrote that you make it listen by default on all interfaces, and
then filter.
If I understand it correctly, it will do that only if the
configuration was modified (an additional interface was specified).
The default configuration should work exactly as before.
This means it will conflict over the port 53.
They bind to different addresses by default.
--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
