Opened 18 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
#2167 closed defect (fixed)
dhcp-3.0.5: and dhclient fails to update resolv.conf with null domain-name
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.2.0 |
| Component: | BOOK | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | dhcp dhclient dhclient-script resolv.conf |
| Cc: |
Description
The dhclient-script contains a bug that has existed for many versions of dhcp now that causes /etc/resolv.conf to not be updated. This occurs when the server does not supply a domain-name to the client.
Attachments (2)
Change History (9)
by , 18 years ago
| Attachment: | dhcp-3.0.4-dns-1.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 17 years ago
| Priority: | lowest → normal |
|---|---|
| Severity: | minor → normal |
| Type: | task → defect |
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
| Summary: | dhcp-3.0.4: dhclient fails to update resolv.conf with null domain-name → dhcp-3.0.5: and dhclient fails to update resolv.conf with null domain-name |
There is a new 3.0.5 version.
It builds cleanly with the existing instructions.
The patch in the attachment still applies, however there is also the dhcp-3.0.5-iproute2-1.patch that applies to the same script, client/scripts/linux
I've tentativly named the new patch dhcp-3.0.5-dns-1.patch.
The optional iproute2 patch updates the file to use iproute2 programs instead of net-tools programs.
If the patches are kept separate, they conflict with each other. That is, they do not both apply cleanly if they are applied out of order or the 2nd (whichever we decide is second) is the only patch applied.
We could also combine the patches into one file, but that reduces flexibility.
I'm looking for suggestions.
comment:3 by , 17 years ago
Though it is embarrasing, I'll comment that I have no recent experience using DHCP on Linux. However, I understand the issues.
Wouldn't it be sane, and easy enough to simply explain in the package instructions which patch should be used for which application?
Please explain the dilemma in a bit more detail and this one should be easy to come to a community agreement. I simply don't understand exactly what it is that makes it where someone could/might apply a patch out of order.
by , 17 years ago
| Attachment: | dhcp-3.0.5-client_dns-1.patch added |
|---|
Patch from upstream 3.1.0a1 to fix the DNS servers issue
comment:4 by , 17 years ago
To throw some more fuel into the fire, here's a patch from the upstream alpha tarball to fix the DNS issue. I'm sure it still conflicts with the iproute2 patch, but it may be more useful for the book and would be cool to have since we wouldn't have any compatibility problems when the upgrade is made to dhcp-3.1.x.
comment:5 by , 17 years ago
I think I have a solution. We can make the upstream dns patch "Required" and update the optional iproute2 patch to work properly on the resultant file. Of course this should be explained in the text too.
Then if someone applies the iproute2 patch without the dns patch and the patch doesn't apply or applies with offset/fuzz, then they are on their own.
Does this seem like an appropriate way to go?
comment:6 by , 17 years ago
Excellent. P.S. I've been using the client part of dhcp-3.0.5 with the above DNS patch for about a week now. Everything's fine here.
This is Jürg Billeter's dhcp-3.0.3-dns-1.patch, updated against 3.0.4 - the only change is the patch now has up to date numbers in it since it was fully compatable. It fixes the proposed issue in this ticket. Thanks to Dan Nicholson for pointing me to Jürg's work, making it potentially available for the next book!