[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-03-04 Thread SeijiSensei
I get the exact same behavior on the Kubuntu Precise desktop beta, though bind9 is not installed. I end up with the resolv.conf posted by the OP with 127.0.0.1 as the nameserver. I cannot override this even with static DNS settings in Kubuntu's network configuration. When the network starts,

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-03-04 Thread SeijiSensei
One other thing: There is no /etc/resolvconf/resolv.conf.d/original, just the head and base files, on my installation. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bind9 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933723 Title:

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-19 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/resolvconf -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bind9 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933723 Title: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file To manage notifications about this bug

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-18 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Branch linked: lp:debian/bind9 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bind9 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933723 Title: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file To manage notifications about this bug go

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-17 Thread Thomas Hood
Yes, I think that Debian bug report #483098 gives the background information needed to understand what's going on here. Bind9 should certainly not by default send its (loopback) address to resolvconf. Bind9 should only send its address to resolvconf if it is known that named can provide general

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-17 Thread LaMont Jones
** Changed in: bind9 (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bind9 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933723 Title: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file To manage

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-17 Thread LaMont Jones
The next upload of bind9 will default to not enabling resolvconf, since there is no way for it to guarantee that it can resolve addresses and is not behind some egress-filtering firewall. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-16 Thread Bug Watch Updater
** Changed in: bind9 (Debian) Status: Unknown = New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bind9 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/933723 Title: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file To manage

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-16 Thread Steve Langasek
The resolvconf /usr/share/doc/resolvconf/README.gz also points to a Debian bug report for bind9: http://bugs.debian.org/483098 It seems that, *either* bind9 should not inject itself into resolvconf by default, *or* bind9 should completely integrate with resolvconf and pick up upstream resolver

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-16 Thread Steve Langasek
Spoke with Jeff on IRC; apparently he's getting bind9 installed when he wasn't expecting it, and this is where resolv.conf is being pointed. So the bug here is with bind9: the debconf question bind9/run-resolvconf defaults to 'true', which means that if resolvconf is present (which, as of 12.04,

[Bug 933723] Re: resolvconf creating bogus resolv.conf file

2012-02-16 Thread Steve Langasek
At the very least, this behavior is awkward because it means installing bind9 on a machine will immediately break nameservice until it's configured, even if the admin *knows* that this configuration is needed and is planning to address it ASAP. So I think bind9 should probably not inject itself