Re: Slink's libc6 breaks ftp, telnet, etc...
> I have the following entries in my /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver
> domain
> search
I assime you know what these entries do... specify you nameserver, domain and
also allows you to specify the order the domains are searched.
> The bug # is 34263
>
> At a moment, I am just confused how everything works, named, bind,
> /etc/resolv.conf....
>
> Could someone please clarify on this??
Well I thought if you look at nsswitch in the etc directory it tells you the
order it tries to resolve the name. Mine simply goes /etc/hosts and queries
my locale machine which has named running but does not have any data files.
Then it goes out to our universities NS (specified in /etc/resolv.conf) and
grabs the address as it should. This is fine, except when I unload named, all
resolution is off... that should not be.
My problem is not so much that, as I can nslookup names with either library
installed... but when I load SLINKS library, every program that is linked back
to libc6 (such as smail, telnet, ssh and ftp) do not resolve the name at any
cost (even though I can nslookup the name fine). ncftp, which is linked to
libc5 works no problem....
Very odd, I will look at the bug report...
--Jay Barbee
> Jay Barbee wrote:
>
> > Hummm...
> >
> > I actually do have /etc/resolv.conf. It is odd that I also run BIND but
> > only in a caching mode. My resolve.conf does not point to my box as being
> > a choice for one of the name services, but it still uses server 0.0.0.0
> > (mybox) as the name server.
> >
> > Very odd, but still not my problem. It was link that in Hamm, and I
> > believe Bo too.
> >
> > So if resolve.conf fixes your problem... what do you have in resolve.conf,
> > that I do not have? What are the permissions?
> >
> > I still think it is a bug. Do you have a bug-track number for it?
> >
> > Thanks for the reply,
> > --Jay Barbee
> >
> > At 3/26/99 10:45 AM +0000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> > >I have already raised a bug on that. It is not really a bug though. You can
> > >fix the
> > >problem
> > >by adding a /etc/resolv.conf. Then your dns should work again.
> > >
> > >What I don't know is:
> > > why for earlier libc6 package, we don't need a resolv.conf
> > > While for the libc6 in slink, we must have one....
> > >
> > >Jay Barbee wrote:
> > >
> > >> I just upgraded my HAMM system to SLINK. However after all was said and
> > >> done I got an error during telnet, wget and ftp.. and ncftp gave me no
> > >> errors at all.
> > >>
> > >> The problem is in the libc6 2.0.7.19981211-6 package. With this package
> > >> installed I get the following error: Host name lookup failure
> > >>
> > >> If I go back and add the old package (libc6_2.0.7t-1). I do not have this
> > >> problem.
> > >>
> > >> I have installed SLINK from scratch on a laptop and a friend's system. I
> > >> did not get these errors then, so why now? Is this a bug? Anyone else see
> > >> this?
> > >>
> > >> --Jay Barbee
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <
> > >/dev/null
> > >
> > >--
> > >____________________________________________________________________________
> > >Shao Zhang - Running Debian 2.1 ___ _ _____
> > >Department of Communications / __| |_ __ _ ___ |_ / |_ __ _ _ _ __ _
> > >University of New South Wales \__ \ ' \/ _` / _ \ / /| ' \/ _` | ' \/ _` |
> > >Sydney, Australia |___/_||_\__,_\___/ /___|_||_\__,_|_||_\__, |
> > >Email: shao@cia.edu.au |___/
> > >_____________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> Shao Zhang - Running Debian 2.1 ___ _ _____
> Department of Communications / __| |_ __ _ ___ |_ / |_ __ _ _ _ __ _
> University of New South Wales \__ \ ' \/ _` / _ \ / /| ' \/ _` | ' \/ _` |
> Sydney, Australia |___/_||_\__,_\___/ /___|_||_\__,_|_||_\__, |
> Email: shao@cia.edu.au |___/
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
Reply to: