Bug 202968 - update to current caching nameserver breaks NetworkManager
Summary: update to current caching nameserver breaks NetworkManager
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: caching-nameserver
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Martin Stransky
QA Contact: David Lawrence
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-08-17 15:21 UTC by Bill Nottingham
Modified: 2014-03-17 03:01 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-10-13 12:16:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.