On 8/7/23 12:38, Pavel Březina wrote:
IIUC, when 2228533 is resolved, I should switch from
mdns[-|4|6]_minimal to mdns[-|4|6] and otherwise keep it as is?
Yes.
The order of the modules should be also kept:
Current order is:
hosts: files myhostname libvirt libvirt_guest
On 07. 08. 23 12:49, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 01 August 2023 at 12:16, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi Pavel,
With Avahi upstream maintainer hat on, I would say it still makes sense to
have separate mdns*_minimal and mdns? modules. I would say mdns
(non-minimal) should be rarely
On Tuesday, 01 August 2023 at 12:16, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> With Avahi upstream maintainer hat on, I would say it still makes sense to
> have separate mdns*_minimal and mdns? modules. I would say mdns
> (non-minimal) should be rarely needed, because by default it should be used
> just
On 8/2/23 17:04, Petr Menšík wrote:
I have created upstream pull request, which makes non-minimal plugins to
behave like minimal plugins except it tries to find /etc/mdns.allow. If
that file does not exist, it copies also reverse queries from minimal
plugin.
Here:
I have created upstream pull request, which makes non-minimal plugins to
behave like minimal plugins except it tries to find /etc/mdns.allow. If
that file does not exist, it copies also reverse queries from minimal
plugin.
Here:
https://github.com/lathiat/nss-mdns/pull/89
On 02. 08. 23 9:15,
On 8/1/23 12:41, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi Zdenek,
the current logic is:
- with-mdns4: mdns4_minimal
- with-mdns6: mdns6_minimal
- with-mdns4 and with-mdns6? mdns_minimal
If I understand your message correctly, you propose to keep this
logic but use mdns4/mdns6/mdns instead of minimal and drop
On 8/1/23 12:16, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi Pavel,
With Avahi upstream maintainer hat on, I would say it still makes
sense to have separate mdns*_minimal and mdns? modules. I would say
mdns (non-minimal) should be rarely needed, because by default it
should be used just for *.local names.
I
On 8/1/23 12:41, Petr Menšík wrote:
No, I am afraid that is not gist of that response. We still want
mdns4_minimal to be preferred variant and others to be configurable
manually. Sadly, they are all still needed, with minimal variants
preferred.
and also --with-mdns should be possible in
No, I am afraid that is not gist of that response. We still want
mdns4_minimal to be preferred variant and others to be configurable
manually. Sadly, they are all still needed, with minimal variants preferred.
and also --with-mdns should be possible in addition to existing 4 and 6
variants.
Hi Pavel,
With Avahi upstream maintainer hat on, I would say it still makes sense
to have separate mdns*_minimal and mdns? modules. I would say mdns
(non-minimal) should be rarely needed, because by default it should be
used just for *.local names. As I have wrote to referenced ticket, I
On 8/1/23 03:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 14:47 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
Hi Fedora,
I have this ticket opened against authselect:
https://github.com/authselect/authselect/issues/334
I am not user of mdns myself, so I wonder if non-minimal version of mdns
is something
On 8/1/23 09:56, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
Hi Pavel,
since authselect already advertises features for profiles regarding mdns
as:
--with-mdns4
--with-mdns6
it would be great if the profile feature logically matched what is going
to be enabled - --with-mdn4 will put 'mdns4' into 'hosts' in
On 8/1/23 09:56, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
Fortunately Petr came up with solution for it (now nss-mdns does
always mDNS lookup for .local, but if there is DNS SOA for .local and
mDNS lookup didn't succeed, moves to DNS), so this scenario doesn't
need mdns.allow anymore, but IMO there could be other
Hi Pavel,
since authselect already advertises features for profiles regarding mdns as:
--with-mdns4
--with-mdns6
it would be great if the profile feature logically matched what is going
to be enabled - --with-mdn4 will put 'mdns4' into 'hosts' in
nsswitch.conf instead of current
On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 14:47 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> Hi Fedora,
> I have this ticket opened against authselect:
> https://github.com/authselect/authselect/issues/334
>
> I am not user of mdns myself, so I wonder if non-minimal version of mdns
> is something used and if it should be included
Hi Fedora,
I have this ticket opened against authselect:
https://github.com/authselect/authselect/issues/334
I am not user of mdns myself, so I wonder if non-minimal version of mdns
is something used and if it should be included in the authselect
profiles (or even replace the minimal version).
16 matches
Mail list logo
