Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 11:52:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >> That way, users whose configurations do want to use mDNS with >> systemd-resolved could depend on `systemd-resolved-mdns` and have it >> Just Work. > > That's an interesting idea. On the CTTE side, it was discussed whether > systemd-resolved could Conflicts: avahi-daemon and that was ruled out > rather early. I do not see how this would carry over to > systemd-resolved-mdns though. There, that conflict would really make > sense rather than breaking use cases.
That was exactly my hope. > Or it could go one step further still and we could have both > avahi-daemon and systemd-resolved-mdns declare Provides and Conflicts > for a virtual mdns-resolver package for others to depend on. I don't think a virtual package will work well, because there's no standard interface for publishing things via mdns. And for resolving, the only *standard* interface available is NSS, so that would be something to handle via the corresponding libnss packages rather than the daemons. > The CTTE questioned whether avahi-daemon would be the default resolver > in the long run, so this approach would also enable a way to eventually > transition the functionality in a smooth way. > > I agree that this is all not urgent and we may defer it after trixie. > Yet, it is an interesting way to think about the problem. Thank you. > This is all my own views without a CTTE hat. Much appreciated. I'm glad it helps.
