Bug 202968

Summary: update to current caching nameserver breaks NetworkManager
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bill Nottingham <notting>
Component: caching-nameserverAssignee: Martin Stransky <stransky>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: dcbw, rstrode, rvokal
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-10-13 12:16:34 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Bill Nottingham 2006-08-17 15:21:16 UTC 
Description of problem:

I upgraded to rawhide today, this installed:

caching-nameserver-9.3.2-37.fc6

Immediately, NetworkManager's nameserver broke, and restarting either named or
NM did not fix it.

I eventually just edited /etc/resolv.conf so I could get things done.
Comment 1 David Lawrence 2006-08-17 15:34:39 UTC 
I have observed this behaviour as well. But rather than editing
/etc/resolv.conf, I have found /sbin/service named stop works as well. When
stopping, real values are written to resolv.conf automatically instead of the
127.0.0.1 that NetworkManager installs.
Comment 2 Martin Stransky 2006-09-14 09:52:36 UTC 
If you don't restart named manually, which networks aren't available? Could you
attach bind configuration?
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2006-09-14 19:12:46 UTC 
At this point, it's been reinstalled twice and NM has been downgraded. Not sure
I can reproduce.
Comment 4 Martin Stransky 2006-09-18 14:58:42 UTC 
How many network devices do you have? Do you use any VPN?
Comment 5 Bill Nottingham 2006-09-18 17:17:26 UTC 
Wired and wireless, although only one is ever active at a time. Yes, I use VPN,
(NM-vpnc) and I believe it was up at the time.
Comment 6 Martin Stransky 2006-09-19 12:32:31 UTC 
okay, and do you have still this problem or it appeared only after the upgrade?
It's probably a variant of #203291 or #196962
Comment 7 Bill Nottingham 2006-09-19 14:51:19 UTC 
Haven't seen it since then, no.