Yes, I had a debconf dialog in mind, but I didn't know what Ubuntu's
policies are for such warnings.
I accept your arguments. Thanks for considering the proposal.
I don't think that NM should write to /etc/resolv.conf if the standard
symlink isn't there. That *would* be the kind of disrespect for admin
choices that we all want to avoid. I was just talking to someone at a
cloud services company. This company provides Ubuntu 12.04-derived
images *without* a symlink at /etc/resolv.conf but *with* resolvconf
installed. Having resolvconf installed stops other packages from futzing
with the static file they want at /etc/resolv.conf. (The only problem
with this arrangement in Precise is that resolvconf prints a spurious
error message on stderr. In Quantal resolvconf only prints a warning
message on stderr and this can easily be suppressed by means of a
setting in /etc/default/resolvconf, so the company should be happy with
Quantal.)
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1060200
Title:
Detect in the postinst that resolvconf is installed but
/etc/resolv.conf is not a symlink to ../run/resolvconf/resolv.conf
Status in “network-manager” package in Ubuntu:
Opinion
Bug description:
I would like to start a discussion about a danger I see for 12.10.
Resolvconf was introduced to Ubuntu core rather shortly before 12.04.
Although resolvconf has been in Debian since 2003, popcon statistics
suggest that this optional package is only installed on about 5% of
Debian systems. Resolvconf proper hasn't been adopted by other major
distros. Consequently resolvconf is not very well known yet.
Consequently there are quite a few admins out there who don't know how
to configure it.
From the fact that there are so few resolvconf-related bug reports I
think we can conclude that in the majority of cases the transition to
resolvconf went fairly smoothly. The issues giving rise to bug
#1000244 are, however, not negligible: there are images and tools out
there that have set up Ubuntu 12.04 systems lacking the
/etc/resolv.conf symlink. We can only imagine what has been done to
fix up name resolving on those systems. I believe further that a
significant number of admins out there have disabled resolvconf on
their systems by deleting the /etc/resolv.conf symbolic link --- this
was the quick way to get their system working without having to learn
out how to configure resolvconf properly.
The danger is that 12.10 will break a significant number of machines
out there that lack symlink /etc/resolv.conf. Because of what was
done to solve bug#959037, namely changing nm-dnsmasq's listen address
to 127.0.1.1, any system that lacks the symlink and uses
NetworkManager will have broken name service after upgrade. And it
won't be obvious why name service is broken, either.
Will we save ourselves and others a lot of trouble if we detect such
cases and say in the network-manager postinst: "If resolvconf is
installed and there is no symlink to ../run/resolvconf/resolv.conf at
/etc/resolv.conf then put up a debconf warning telling the admin to
address the issue, preferably by running 'dpkg-reconfigure
resolvconf'"?
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1060200/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
