1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.DIST

  • Bug#1057384: openresolv: Please don't change resolv.conf when it's a sy

    From Martin Hostettler@21:1/5 to dxld@darkboxed.org on Fri Apr 25 22:40:01 2025
    On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:18:16 +0200 Daniel =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=B6ber?= <dxld@darkboxed.org> wrote:
    Control: severity -1 serious
    Justification: Breaks unrelated software
    Control: owner -1 dxld@darkboxed.org
    Control: user debian-release@lists.debian.org
    Control: usertag -1 + bsp-2025-04-at-vienna

    I'm raising the severity of this bug after reading up on rc_policy.


    Is it really better do have openresolv permanently removed from trixie?

    Given the soft freeze rules and the automatic removal of packages with RC
    bugs keeping this at RC level will leave debian trixie without this package.

    Otherwise i think this should be downgraded, as it is should always be
    possible to install resolvconf instead.

    Or maybe a fix could be found?

    Regards,

    - Martin Hostettler

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Martin=2D=C3=89ric_Racine@21:1/5 to rsmarples@gmail.com on Thu May 8 16:30:02 2025
    On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 22:28:37 +0100 Roy Marples <rsmarples@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 22:24:18 +0200 Martin Hostettler <textshell@uchuujin.de> wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:18:16 +0200 Daniel =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=B6ber?= <dxld@darkboxed.org> wrote:
    Control: severity -1 serious
    Justification: Breaks unrelated software
    Control: owner -1 dxld@darkboxed.org
    Control: user debian-release@lists.debian.org
    Control: usertag -1 + bsp-2025-04-at-vienna

    I'm raising the severity of this bug after reading up on rc_policy.


    Is it really better do have openresolv permanently removed from trixie?

    Given the soft freeze rules and the automatic removal of packages with RC bugs keeping this at RC level will leave debian trixie without this package.

    Otherwise i think this should be downgraded, as it is should always be possible to install resolvconf instead.

    Or maybe a fix could be found?

    Regards,

    - Martin Hostettler



    In /etc/resolvconf.conf you can set either libc=NO or resolv_conf=/dev/null openresolv supports the use case where / is RO like a cd and /etc/resolv.conf is a symlink to /var/run/resolv.conf

    Roy

    Which, once again, demonstrates the excessive severity this bug was
    given. "Doesn't fit Daniel's particular usage case" really isn't a justification for marking this bug as Serious. This is fully
    configurable. It's an important bug, at best.

    Martin-Éric

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=B6ber?=@21:1/5 to Roy Marples on Sat May 10 14:10:01 2025
    Hi all,

    The raised severity wasn't intended to remove the package just to raise
    this bug's visibility.

    Clearly I got sidetracked during the BSP. This seems to happen to me a lot
    at events unfortunately since talking to people about how to solve the many large problems in Debian is very effective at drawing my attention away
    from detail work.

    In any case. Thanks Martin for preventing an RM.

    On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:28:37PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
    In /etc/resolvconf.conf you can set either libc=NO or
    resolv_conf=/dev/null openresolv supports the use case where / is RO like
    a cd and /etc/resolv.conf is a symlink to /var/run/resolv.conf

    Interesting feature, thanks for bringing this to our attention.

    However by itself it misses the point here unfortunately.

    The current behaviour of the overall *package* is not interoperable with
    other DNS managment implementations in Debian and asking users to fix it themselves is not a viable solution.

    Ensuring this works smoothly is literally our job as distro maintainers and we've collectively been doing a bad job in this area.

    Ask anyone (who debugs this kind of thing) about system wide DNS in Debian
    and you'll see what I mean ;-).

    On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 05:24:50PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
    Which, once again, demonstrates the excessive severity this bug was
    given. "Doesn't fit Daniel's particular usage case" really isn't a justification for marking this bug as Serious. This is fully
    configurable. It's an important bug, at best.

    Martin. This isn't about my use-case. My use-case just demonstrates the
    larger problem. I could have been clearer on that point.

    Personally I'd love to just be able to trust Debian's overall DNS
    managment, but right now that's not possible because of the many sharp
    edges especially around contemporary use-cases.

    Usually I have better things to do than debugging what package messed up resolv.conf *today* hence my use-case, but it's just a symptom of a more general problem in our DNS ecosystem IMO.

    In any case. I hope you're going to join our DebConf session where we'll (hopefully) get around to working on solutions in this area: https://debconf25.debconf.org/talks/124-networking-bof/

    --Daniel

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEV6G/FbT2+ZuJ7bKf05SBrh55rPcFAmgfQXwACgkQ05SBrh55 rPdv2RAAqSOtkvIn6BiXruFmM4dadgbe2IT6JPrf9DZbfcEVlx/vDuFW19hiRI/I dySvlAm6wzU62SPRm8ef5ZMSb/N1cPtw9N6JB8UvXAEC4a/Gh5DWSHoxDQ+s+kh7 4ypkZxcOEt0XDZRdnZYKcLBsefKVRuTU6iBfDBuqyTvkDSzH67Wx+hDQ4AWg0kxO TnDeVrnVAC647gDCfmNEgCJaWbX6SRVNHw9Rfscti9SKV56a2u0Kmh38JpPVxiuI 9tSXmGTehYRWKFha+0aKEKNBh6l5vA5+5S6c+tvVz7cP/WWooqLfXC02mn89yv3b tAkVnOuLUaYpU3XJ5i23FgOPzZOZQaMZUz/GpAUamAyi7tA/gmiyH0fpS+eoSHYW AQhYzat1kZF3qQVjT0wO61Fyum9LeRr0uUJiW3J8cE7VtcgQICsyZNS3zXhMmmP8 xYokyVw24B/gxLHYk92/O2gxDH5+MDoTTYh6DG7oHjEO8W62jMDGEqJoFiIB4pVH HwbGFOFN7+rqn6rLsT+8bX6Cl3UpuzPoFQUShBxyC6Eg6tfm4vliGSRDNnFe0SPE 4k7ONPkJksc4VNnm7qpQLtSRxcAKUds17J3HZNzDA4yei3yrpXTQGhTAt7WiSpkS 6aVBhG25vlGW9v7G2gKbMdiyYCYdoZKpRxNya8kqviQdFn1uGXc=
    =sJlE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)