On 09/11/13 19:07, Philip Potter wrote:
> I agree that the postinst is a better place than the init script to run
> "resolvconf -u".
>
> I'm not sure that it should be conditional on IGNORE_RESOLVCONF though -
> given that the update script will be run next time anything touches
> resolvconf, what's to be gained by not running it in the postinst? And
> why stop there? Why not also make it conditional on ENABLED=0?
>
> I've created a branch with an unconditional "resolvconf -u" in the
> postinst. I'm new to launchpad and bazaar so I'm not sure what the next
> step is -- do I propose a merge? Do I attach a patch to this ticket?
>
Once this has gone though Ubunutu processes, please send my a diff and
I'll propogate it to the Debian package.
On 09/11/13 19:07, Philip Potter wrote:
> I agree that the postinst is a better place than the init script to run
> "resolvconf -u".
>
> I'm not sure that it should be conditional on IGNORE_RESOLVCONF though -
> given that the update script will be run next time anything touches
> resolvconf, what's to be gained by not running it in the postinst? And
> why stop there? Why not also make it conditional on ENABLED=0?
>
> I've created a branch with an unconditional "resolvconf -u" in the
> postinst. I'm new to launchpad and bazaar so I'm not sure what the next
> step is -- do I propose a merge? Do I attach a patch to this ticket?
>
Once this has gone though Ubunutu processes, please send my a diff and
I'll propogate it to the Debian package.
Cheers,
Simon.