On 6/26/21 8:13 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I was abeing sarcastic. I actually like vi and have been using it for
over 30 years. The remark was becasue vi
creates more of a storm than what topping to get on a pizza!
Aha. And here I thought you hated it as much as I do.
On 6/26/21 6:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
# Do not modify this file manually.
If I had a nickle for every time I have ignored
that warning in the past 35 years, I'd be a very,
very wealthy man.
Chuckle !!
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproj
On 6/26/21 6:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 6/26/21 6:53 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
If you mean how do I make the alteration, I used
the test editor from h*** ("vi").
If you hate it that much, why do you use it? There are others, you
know, such as nano.
I was abeing sarcastic. I actuall
On 27/06/2021 08:53, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/26/21 4:50 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 27/06/2021 05:16, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
My only computer with the issue is also using bridge
networking.
Eyal recommendation to alter nsswitch.conf
# hosts: files myhostname mdns4_minimal
On 6/26/21 6:53 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
If you mean how do I make the alteration, I used
the test editor from h*** ("vi").
If you hate it that much, why do you use it? There are others, you
know, such as nano.
___
users mailing list -- us
On 6/26/21 4:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:20, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just posted:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Don't forget to update your BZ to add the knowledge about needing a
bridge network
to reprod
On 6/26/21 4:50 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 27/06/2021 05:16, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
My only computer with the issue is also using bridge
networking.
Eyal recommendation to alter nsswitch.conf
# hosts: files myhostname mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] resolve
[!UNAVAIL=return] dns
h
On 6/26/21 4:15 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 27/06/2021 07:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Since you can take snapshots of VM's. Why not take a snapshot before an upgrade, then upgrade to
the latest kernel and see if you can reproduce the error?
My VM's
On 26/06/2021 05:20, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just posted:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Don't forget to update your BZ to add the knowledge about needing a bridge
network
to reproduce the issue.
--
Remind me to ignore c
On 27/06/2021 05:16, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
My only computer with the issue is also using bridge
networking.
Eyal recommendation to alter nsswitch.conf
# hosts: files myhostname mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] resolve
[!UNAVAIL=return] dns
hosts: files myhostname mdns4_minima
On 27/06/2021 07:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Since you can take snapshots of VM's. Why not take a snapshot before an
upgrade, then upgrade to
the latest kernel and see if you can reproduce the error?
My VM's are not configured with bridge networkin
On 6/25/21 5:31 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Since you can take snapshots of VM's. Why not take a snapshot before an upgrade, then upgrade to
the latest kernel and see if you can reproduce the error?
My VM's are not configured with bridge networking, only
the host
__
On 6/25/21 5:39 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
After a (late May update) I had problems with name resolution and tracked it down to this line on the name server host:
hosts: files myhostname resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns
and this fixed it for me
hosts: files myhostname resolve d
On 6/26/21 10:19 AM, James Szinger wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:33:04 -0400
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Very weird that the kernel could br
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:33:04 -0400
Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
> ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>
> > Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
>
> Very weird that the kernel could break name resolution since t
On 26/06/2021 15:13, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 11:56 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
not unavailable
double negative
Yes, that is what [!UNAVAIL=return] means. It is a double negative as that is
what ! does. It checks the
opposite condition of "UNAVAIL"
The valid "status" entries f
On 6/25/21 11:56 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
not unavailable
double negative
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/
On 26/06/2021 14:18, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:39 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
After a (late May update) I had problems with name resolution and tracked it
down to this line on the name server host:
hosts: files myhostname resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns
and this fixed i
On 6/25/21 5:39 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
After a (late May update) I had problems with name resolution and
tracked it down to this line on the name server host:
hosts: files myhostname resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns
and this fixed it for me
hosts: files myhostname resolve d
On 26/06/2021 08:39, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
After a (late May update) I had problems with name resolution and tracked it
down to this line on the name server host:
hosts: files myhostname resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns
and this fixed it for me
hosts: files myhostname resolve dns
On 26/06/2021 10.31, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 08:24, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:00 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
I don't know were that snippet comes from. But, the "Not found" may be due to
dig using the system's
resolver to first get the IP of resolver1.opendns.com. So, I
On 26/06/2021 08:24, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 5:00 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
I don't know were that snippet comes from. But, the "Not found" may be due to
dig using the system's
resolver to first get the IP of resolver1.opendns.com. So, I would have used
the IP of that instead.
On 6/25/21 5:00 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 07:25, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 3:33 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 06:23, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
T
On 26/06/2021 07:25, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 3:33 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 06:23, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5
On 6/25/21 3:33 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 06:23, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.r
On 26/06/2021 06:23, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Very
On 6/25/21 2:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Very weird that the kernel could break name resolution s
On 26/06/2021 05:33, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Very weird that the kernel could break name resolution since that
all works at library level. M
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:20:30 -0700
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Kernel 5.12.12-300 breaks host resolution
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976371
Very weird that the kernel could break name resolution since that
all works at library level. Maybe some "deprecated" interface
is bei
On 6/25/21 2:07 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 6/25/21 1:50 PM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
On 6/25/21 3:20 PM, toddandmargo via users wrote:
`host ` worked.
$ host gbis.com
gbis.com has address 207.228.37.200
gbis.com mail is handled by 0 mx.greatbasin.net.
`ping
On 6/25/21 1:50 PM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
On 6/25/21 3:20 PM, toddandmargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
Fedora 34
Xfce 4.14
I am in real trouble here. My business is most shutdown over this.
My browsers, Thunderbird, and ping won't work. Nothing
that used the Internet worked. Well, almost.
I c
On 6/25/21 3:20 PM, toddandmargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
Fedora 34
Xfce 4.14
I am in real trouble here. My business is most shutdown over this.
My browsers, Thunderbird, and ping won't work. Nothing
that used the Internet worked. Well, almost.
I can not find anything about this issue on Goo
Hi All,
Fedora 34
Xfce 4.14
I am in real trouble here. My business is most shutdown over this.
My browsers, Thunderbird, and ping won't work. Nothing
that used the Internet worked. Well, almost.
I can not find anything about this issue on Google or Duck Duck Go.
After installing Tor yesterday
33 matches
Mail list logo
