I am sorry for warming up an old thread. But I got somewhat confused about one detail of this patch to ppp-udeb:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 11:39:33PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2007, Josef Wolf wrote: > > IMHO, the setting in /etc/resolv.conf is mostly for convenience. It > > saves me some typing, that's all. In contrast, the setting in /etc/hosts > > is more important since it is needed to make "hostname -d" and > > "hostname -f" work. [ ... ] > + if [ "$DOMAINNAME" ]; then > + echo -e "127.0.1.1\t$HOSTNAME.$DOMAINNAME\t$HOSTNAME" >> > /etc/hosts > + else > + echo -e "127.0.1.1\t$HOSTNAME" >> /etc/hosts > + fi [ ... ] I am curious whether it is really a good idea to point $HOSTNAME.$DOMAINNAME to 127.0.1.1. While this works fine for services on the local host, it fails if the address is provided to other hosts. For example, if one installs dnsmasq, the $HOSTNAME.$DOMAINNAME will resolve to 127.0.1.1 for the whole network, which is obviously not the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better to set a hosts entry from ppp-udeb only if there are no other network interfaces available. When other interfaces exist (e.g. LAN on eth0 if the host in question is a DSL-router), this setting should be done by netcfg when it configures this interface. Opinions? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
