Hi.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 01:04:39 -0400 Felix Miata wrote:
> ToddAndMargo composed on 2024-10-27 21:51 (UTC-0700):
>> On 10/27/24 19:59, Felix Miata wrote:
>>> Just because other packages require its installation doesn't mean you must
>>> allow
>>> to be used. All my installations have systemd-
ToddAndMargo composed on 2024-10-27 21:51 (UTC-0700):
> On 10/27/24 19:59, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Just because other packages require its installation doesn't mean you must
>> allow
>> to be used. All my installations have systemd-resolvd.service disabled and
>> masked,
>> and I have an old-fash
On 10/27/24 19:59, Felix Miata wrote:
ToddAndMargo composed on 2024-10-27 19:35 (UTC-0700):
Figured it out.
My web search show this being a complete pain-in-the-neck
(not my actual words) for a lot of folks.
And to add insult to injury, systemd-resolved is required
for various other packa
ToddAndMargo composed on 2024-10-27 19:35 (UTC-0700):
> Figured it out.
> My web search show this being a complete pain-in-the-neck
> (not my actual words) for a lot of folks.
> And to add insult to injury, systemd-resolved is required
> for various other packages to upgrade.
Just because other
On 10/27/24 15:23, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
Fedora 39
I am running a caching named server (named-chroot). It
is listening on 127.0.0.1. The WAN IP address comes from
the DHCP on my DSL modem.
Problem: the accursed systemd-resolved changes
/etc/resolv.conf
from
nameserver 1
Hi All,
Fedora 39
I am running a caching named server (named-chroot). It
is listening on 127.0.0.1. The WAN IP address comes from
the DHCP on my DSL modem.
Problem: the accursed systemd-resolved changes
/etc/resolv.conf
from
nameserver 127.0.0.1
search .
to
nameserver 127.0.0.53
