I don't really understand why we need to add a conditional at all. It's always safe to run resolvconf -u one time too many; but running it one time too few will introduce subtle bugs (like this one).
The proposed conditional only suppresses running resolvconf -u if ENABLED=1 and resolvconf is not being used (ie IGNORE_RESOLVCONF=yes). Is this really such a common case that adding complexity to get the minor optimization of not running resolvconf -u is worth it?
Also, doesn't your argument about ENABLED=0 later being changed to ENABLED=1 also apply to IGNORE_RESOLVCONF=yes later being changed to IGNORE_RESOLVCONF=no?
I'm still in favour of just unconditionally running resolvconf -u, as my branch does.
I don't really understand why we need to add a conditional at all. It's always safe to run resolvconf -u one time too many; but running it one time too few will introduce subtle bugs (like this one).
The proposed conditional only suppresses running resolvconf -u if ENABLED=1 and resolvconf is not being used (ie IGNORE_ RESOLVCONF= yes). Is this really such a common case that adding complexity to get the minor optimization of not running resolvconf -u is worth it?
Also, doesn't your argument about ENABLED=0 later being changed to ENABLED=1 also apply to IGNORE_ RESOLVCONF= yes later being changed to IGNORE_ RESOLVCONF= no?
I'm still in favour of just unconditionally running resolvconf -u, as my branch does.