[gentoo-user] What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[gentoo-user] What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

How is it that the baselayout has changed and now the domainname script 
is missing from /etc/init.d and all sorts of other ramifications because 
of this?

It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a 
systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!  Now I see 
that I have to set domainname in /etc/conf.d/net and that the domainname 
program returns "(none)".  A lot of software is affected by this and I 
am frankly stunned by the fact that this was just "plopped" into stable.

What a beauty to see at the login promp:

Linux(MyHost.unknown_domain)

Yeah .. that is reassuring to the users.

Tom Veldhouse
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy@veldy.net>:

> How is it that the baselayout has changed and now the domainname script 
> is missing from /etc/init.d and all sorts of other ramifications because 
> of this?

"this" == you, not configuring the system?

> It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a 
> systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!

True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface.

But I agree, it makes no sense to even be able to set this per interface.
At least I don't see how or when this could be useful and how this should
work.

> Now I see  
> that I have to set domainname in /etc/conf.d/net and that the domainname 
> program returns "(none)".  A lot of software is affected by this

By "what"? By a misconfigured system?

Alexander Skwar, who also was quite surprised when the domainname
configuration moved to /etc/conf.d/net.
-- 
The eternal feminine draws us upward.
                -- Goethe


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:

> > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a 
> > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!  
> 
> True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface.

Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or
per-interface in the same file.

> But I agree, it makes no sense to even be able to set this per
> interface.

I can think of a couple of uses for this.

A laptop with wired and wireless interfaces. wired is only used on the
"home" network, with a fixed domain. wireless is used in multiple
locations with the domain set via DHCP.

A server with multiple interfaces, running different domains on each,
although this could also be done with virtual hosts.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:

>> But I agree, it makes no sense to even be able to set this per
>> interface.
> 
> I can think of a couple of uses for this.
> 
> A laptop with wired and wireless interfaces. wired is only used on the
> "home" network, with a fixed domain. wireless is used in multiple
> locations with the domain set via DHCP.

Okay. But what's the domainname, when both NICs are "connected"?

> A server with multiple interfaces, running different domains on each,
> although this could also be done with virtual hosts.

Hm? I don't get this. For NICs, there are no domainnames. And Virtual
Hosts only exist in the context of webservers. In this context, I don't
see how this makes sense.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
You can learn many things from children.  How much patience you have,
for instance.
                -- Franklin P. Jones


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:

> I have my system setup to disconnect the wireless NIC when a network
> cable is plugged in. Havingmore than one domain name at the same time is obviously a bad isdea, but where NICs are connected one at a time, there is certainly a use.

Allright, I see that now.

> Forget that,

What should I forget? :) Did you write anything?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
<robert> i understand there are some reasonable limits to free speech in
         america, for example I cannot scream Fire into a crowded theatre
         .. But can i scream fire into a theatre with only 5 or 6 poeple
         in it ?


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
> >
> > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface.
>
> Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or
> per-interface in the same file.

Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?  I am not sure I can follow 
the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.  My hardware router/modem acts 
as the dns server for the LAN and I used to be able to setup a domainname 
STUDY for my LAN.
-- 
Regards, 
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:

> On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
>> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
>> >
>> > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface.
>>
>> Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or
>> per-interface in the same file.
> 
> Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?

It's all in /etc/conf.d/net.example.

> I am not sure I can follow  
> the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.

What problems do you have specifically?
What did you try?
What was the expected outcome and what did you get in reality?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
BOFH Excuse #205:

Quantum dynamics are affecting the transistors


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· reader@newsguy.com <reader@newsguy.com>:

> Yes, please do.  In a simple case of a home network with static IPs
> and a router to internet.  Where is one expected to set domainname.

You're expected to do that in /etc/conf.d/net. See net.example, section
"System".

Please say what you tried and what you got.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
There's nothing to writing.  All you do is sit at a typewriter and open a vein.
                -- Red Smith


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --]

On Sunday 17 September 2006 13:43, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> · Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:
> > On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
> >> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
> >> >
> >> > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per
> >> > interface.
> >>
> >> Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or
> >> per-interface in the same file.
> >
> > Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?
>
> It's all in /etc/conf.d/net.example.
>
> > I am not sure I can follow
> > the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.
>
> What problems do you have specifically?
> What did you try?
> What was the expected outcome and what did you get in reality?

I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the /etc/conf.d/net.example and 
added: dns_domain="STUDY"

but still .none comes up:

# domainname
(none)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Kevin O'Gorman]

On 9/17/06, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 September 2006 13:43, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > · Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:
> > > On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > >> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
> > >> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
> > >> >
> > >> > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per
> > >> > interface.
> > >>
> > >> Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or
> > >> per-interface in the same file.
> > >
> > > Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?
> >
> > It's all in /etc/conf.d/net.example.
> >
> > > I am not sure I can follow
> > > the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.
> >
> > What problems do you have specifically?
> > What did you try?
> > What was the expected outcome and what did you get in reality?
>
> I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the /etc/conf.d/net.example and
> added: dns_domain="STUDY"
>
> but still .none comes up:
>
> # domainname
> (none)
>

I have to join in the confusion too.  Reading the examples I come to the same
conclusion that I should be able to put
    dns_domain="kosmanor.com"
in /etc/conf.d/net and have it work.  It does not, and I get the same
result as Mick.

As I have static IP's and a single domain I see no point in
per-interface domains, but
if I used them, what in the world could I expect domainname(1) to tell me?

It seems to me the most common setups are DHCP or something like mine, and I
would hope the documentation was clear for those common cases.
-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Timothy A. Holmes]

> > >> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > >> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting
a
> > >> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
> > >> >
> > >> > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per
> > >> > interface.
> > >>
> > >> Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it
globally
> or
> > >> per-interface in the same file.
> > >
> > > Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?
> >
> > It's all in /etc/conf.d/net.example.
> >
> > > I am not sure I can follow
> > > the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.
> >
> > What problems do you have specifically?
> > What did you try?
> > What was the expected outcome and what did you get in reality?
> 
> I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the
/etc/conf.d/net.example
> and
> added: dns_domain="STUDY"
> 
> but still .none comes up:
> 
> # domainname
> (none)
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Mick

[Timothy A. Holmes] 
I am not sure if this is related or not, but for some reason, my
resolv.conf keeps getting modified, causing samba to fail.  I open it
and all that is in there is the domain, no name servers.

If someone has a solution, please tell me -- my file server is now
offline 

Timothy A. Holmes
IT Manager / Network Admin / Web Master / Computer Teacher
 
Medina Christian Academy
A Higher Standard...


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com>:
> On 9/17/06, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 September 2006 13:43, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> > · Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:
>> > > On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:

>> > > Can you please guide me how to set it up globally?
>> >
>> > It's all in /etc/conf.d/net.example.
>> >
>> > > I am not sure I can follow
>> > > the otherwise well commented /etc/conf.d/net.
>> >
>> > What problems do you have specifically?
>> > What did you try?
>> > What was the expected outcome and what did you get in reality?
>>
>> I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the /etc/conf.d/net.example and
>> added: dns_domain="STUDY"
>>
>> but still .none comes up:
>>
>> # domainname
>> (none)
>>
> 
> I have to join in the confusion too.  Reading the examples I come to the same
> conclusion that I should be able to put
>     dns_domain="kosmanor.com"
> in /etc/conf.d/net and have it work.

You're right.

I've got:

# Alle Interfaces
modules=( "ifconfig" )
dns_servers="130.171.200.151 130.171.157.129"
dns_search="dewup.europe europe"
dns_domain="dewup.europe"
ntp_servers="130.171.200.145 130.171.200.144"
nis_domain="wup.de"
nis_servers="10.233.7.240"

# eth0 - LAN
config_eth0=( "10.233.7.145 netmask 255.255.248.0 broadcast 10.233.7.255" )
routes_eth0=( "default via 10.233.0.250" )

And this does work. As you can see, I've got dns_domain="dewup.europe" and when
I run "hostname -d", I get the expected result - dewup.europe.

> As I have static IP's and a single domain I see no point in
> per-interface domains, but

The point has been explained.

> if I used them, what in the world could I expect domainname(1) to tell me?

The domainname. But you haven't set one. You've set the DNS domainname. domainname
doesn't return the DNS domainname as the documentation clearly states. See "hostname
--help" or "domainname --help".

> It seems to me the most common setups are DHCP or something like mine, and I
> would hope the documentation was clear for those common cases.

Actually, I find it quite clear. The documentation states what needs to be
done and it states, what the commands return. It seems, that you've used
the wrong command.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
The only difference in the game of love over the last few thousand years
is that they've changed trumps from clubs to diamonds.
                -- The Indianapolis Star


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Richard Fish]

On 9/17/06, Timothy A. Holmes <tholmes@mcaschool.net> wrote:
> I am not sure if this is related or not, but for some reason, my
> resolv.conf keeps getting modified, causing samba to fail.  I open it
> and all that is in there is the domain, no name servers.

The reason is noted in net.example:

# Setting name/domain server causes /etc/resolv.conf to be overwritten

True, it's under the wireless area, but it still applies.

To add your dns servers, add:

dns_servers="1.2.3.4 5.6.7.8"

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Sunday 17 September 2006 18:59, Alexander Skwar wrote:

> I've got:
>
> # Alle Interfaces
> modules=( "ifconfig" )
> dns_servers="130.171.200.151 130.171.157.129"
> dns_search="dewup.europe europe"
> dns_domain="dewup.europe"
> ntp_servers="130.171.200.145 130.171.200.144"
> nis_domain="wup.de"
> nis_servers="10.233.7.240"
>
> # eth0 - LAN
> config_eth0=( "10.233.7.145 netmask 255.255.248.0 broadcast
> 10.233.7.255" ) routes_eth0=( "default via 10.233.0.250" )
>
> And this does work. As you can see, I've got dns_domain="dewup.europe"
> and when I run "hostname -d", I get the expected result -
> dewup.europe.

Just curious: do you have the fqdn of your host in /etc/hosts? If it's 
there and you remove it, does hostname -d still work?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org>:

> On Sunday 17 September 2006 18:59, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> 
>> I've got:
>>
>> # Alle Interfaces
>> modules=( "ifconfig" )
>> dns_servers="130.171.200.151 130.171.157.129"
>> dns_search="dewup.europe europe"
>> dns_domain="dewup.europe"
>> ntp_servers="130.171.200.145 130.171.200.144"
>> nis_domain="wup.de"
>> nis_servers="10.233.7.240"
>>
>> # eth0 - LAN
>> config_eth0=( "10.233.7.145 netmask 255.255.248.0 broadcast
>> 10.233.7.255" ) routes_eth0=( "default via 10.233.0.250" )
>>
>> And this does work. As you can see, I've got dns_domain="dewup.europe"
>> and when I run "hostname -d", I get the expected result -
>> dewup.europe.
> 
> Just curious: do you have the fqdn of your host in /etc/hosts?

Yes, I do.

> If it's  
> there and you remove it, does hostname -d still work?

Yes.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Reporter (to Mahatma Gandhi): Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western
        Civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy@veldy.net>:

> Mick wrote:
>> I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the /etc/conf.d/net.example and 
>> added: dns_domain="STUDY"
>>
>> but still .none comes up:
>>
>> # domainname
>> (none)
>>
>>   
> Indeed ... it is NOT set to work properly for the way a majority of 
> software uses it .... by calling "domainname".

Well... But what Mick showed was the expected behaviour. He
has NOT set a domainname - at least not the domainname that
the "domainname" command would return.

domainname --help clearly shows, what domainname will return:
The *NIS* domainname. This always used to be the case and 
hopefully always will be the case.

With dns_domain, the DNS domainname is set. And that's returned
by dnsdomainname (or hostname -d).

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Linux: Where Don't We Want To Go Today?
        -- Submitted by Pancrazio De Mauro, paraphrasing some well-known sales talk


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy@veldy.net>:

> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Actually, I find it quite clear. The documentation states what needs to be
>> done and it states, what the commands return. It seems, that you've used
>> the wrong command.
>>
>>   
> Following all instructions results in the console login prompt looking 
> something like this:
> 
> Linux version(hostname.unknown_domain)
> 
> Which looks ludicrous ...

Yes. It kind of luck like, as if the admin hasn't properly configured
the system.

On my system, I've got in /etc/issue:

This is \n.\O (\s \m \r) \t

"man getty" will show what this does.

I get the impression, that there's not "not enough" documentation,
but maybe *too* *much*?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
I would gladly raise my voice in praise of women, only they won't let me
raise my voice.
                -- Winkle


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Drew]

> Following all instructions results in the console login prompt looking
> something like this:
>
> Linux version(hostname.unknown_domain)
>
> Which looks ludicrous ... it is also expecting domainname [or API
> equivalent] to return something other than "none".
>
> Tom Veldhouse

I don't know if this helps but I was fiddling with setting up 2006.1
and I noted the following...

1) dns_domain="" does nothing for setting the domain name. It appears
to be set via /etc/hosts

2) using "localhost" in /etc/conf.d/hostname will cause the domain
name to default to "none"

3) Setting a hostname in /etc/conf.d/hostname that doesn't match with
an entry in /etc/hosts grabs the domain name of entries that are part
of the same subnet. I don't have multiple interfaces on different
subnets to test other cases of this but it works for me.

My working config (mini.drew.homelinux.com) has the hostname of 'mini'
set in /etc/conf.d/hostname, 'drew.homelinux.com' set in dns_domain=
and mini.drew.homelinux.com listed under /etc/hosts.

Please note this was tested on an amd64 setup with a single ethernet
interface under VMware (running under M$ XP Pro x64).


-Drew
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Ryan Tandy]

Mick wrote:
> I saw this: # dns_domain_eth0="your.domain" in the /etc/conf.d/net.example and 
> added: dns_domain="STUDY"
> 
> but still .none comes up:
> 
> # domainname
> (none)
> 

the command should be: dnsdomainname (or hostname -d)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

On Sunday 17 September 2006 20:02, Alexander Skwar wrote:

> Well... But what Mick showed was the expected behaviour. He
> has NOT set a domainname - at least not the domainname that
> the "domainname" command would return.

I just can't get it.  :-(

When I logon I can see in the console:

"This is lappy.(none) (Linux i686 2.6.7-gentoo-r8) 13.31.51"

Where is this "(none)" being read from?  As in which files and which 
particular entry in that file?

> domainname --help clearly shows, what domainname will return:
> The *NIS* domainname. This always used to be the case and
> hopefully always will be the case.

OK, but when I enter nis_domain="STUDY" in /etc/conf.d/net, I still 
get "(none)".

Unlike Alex's earlier example I do not need to set up DNS servers addresses, 
or other IP addresses as these are picked up by the dhcpcd server from my 
hardware router.

I manually ran:

# domainname STUDY

and now I get:

# domainname -v
getdomainname()=`STUDY'
STUDY

which is fine, but the console still shows hostname.(none).  I am obviously 
confused with all this name setting and would very much appreciate your 
patience and help to make me understand.  :)
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:47:03 +0100, Mick wrote:

> When I logon I can see in the console:
> 
> "This is lappy.(none) (Linux i686 2.6.7-gentoo-r8) 13.31.51"
> 
> Where is this "(none)" being read from?  As in which files and which 
> particular entry in that file?

/etc/issue sets the login output. A \o in there is replaced by the NIS
domain, \O by the DNS domain.

> Unlike Alex's earlier example I do not need to set up DNS servers addresses, 
> or other IP addresses as these are picked up by the dhcpcd server from my 
> hardware router.

Does your router set the domain correctly? What does "hostname -d" give?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

This is as bad as it can get-but don't bet on it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Sigi Schwartz]

Hi.

Ryan Tandy wrote:
> the command should be: dnsdomainname (or hostname -d)
Now, I have a question to that: How or when do new settings apply? Even
though I use DHCP I understand that one can override the results from
that. For testing purposes I'd like to use that.

But I can change the setting of DNSDOMAIN in /etc/conf.d/domainname (the
old way) and dns_domain_ethX (plus dns_servers_ethX, which seems to be
required) in /etc/conf.d/net to anything without any "success".
dnsdomainname would still return the same old settings. That's ok so
far, but I don't like any surprises on reboot, where new settings
certainly apply. My hardware doesn't like warm starts and I don't like
to torture it with frequent cold starts.

So, how do I make new (testing-)settings apply without reboot?

Regards,
Sigi

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Ryan Tandy]

Sigi Schwartz wrote:
> 
> So, how do I make new (testing-)settings apply without reboot?

/etc/init.d/net.eth0 restart

and wait a few seconds for your resolv.conf to be updated.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

On Monday 18 September 2006 14:17, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:47:03 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > When I logon I can see in the console:
> >
> > "This is lappy.(none) (Linux i686 2.6.7-gentoo-r8) 13.31.51"
> >
> > Where is this "(none)" being read from?  As in which files and which
> > particular entry in that file?
>
> /etc/issue sets the login output. A \o in there is replaced by the NIS
> domain, \O by the DNS domain.

# cat /etc/issue
This is \n.\O (\s \m \r) \t

So, it should read my DNS domain name.  But it doesn't.

> > Unlike Alex's earlier example I do not need to set up DNS servers
> > addresses, or other IP addresses as these are picked up by the dhcpcd
> > server from my hardware router.

i.e. as far as my laptop is concerned the router (192.168.0.1) is the dns 
server.

> Does your router set the domain correctly? What does "hostname -d" give?

I'm afraid it gives nothing!

# hostname -d
#
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:12:13 +0100, Mick wrote:

> > /etc/issue sets the login output. A \o in there is replaced by the NIS
> > domain, \O by the DNS domain.  
> 
> # cat /etc/issue
> This is \n.\O (\s \m \r) \t
> 
> So, it should read my DNS domain name.  But it doesn't.
> 
> > > Unlike Alex's earlier example I do not need to set up DNS servers
> > > addresses, or other IP addresses as these are picked up by the
> > > dhcpcd server from my hardware router.  

Have you set the dns_domain in conf.d/net?

> i.e. as far as my laptop is concerned the router (192.168.0.1) is the
> dns server.
> 
> > Does your router set the domain correctly? What does "hostname -d"
> > give?  
> 
> I'm afraid it gives nothing!

It sounds like dns_domain is not set.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object
to realize that you are in a hurry.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Have you set the dns_domain in conf.d/net?
>
>   
I have tried this and it does NOT work. 
>>
>> I'm afraid it gives nothing!
>>     
>
> It sounds like dns_domain is not set.
>
>   
Considering that I have tried it ... I know it not to work, so I have 
little doubt that he tried it himself.  This isn't hard to reproduce 
guys ....

Tom


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 922 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 13:51, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Have you set the dns_domain in conf.d/net?
>
> I have tried this and it does NOT work.

Yes, I have made several attempts to set it up in the /etc/conf.d/net, inc.:

dns_domain="STUDY"
dns_domain_lo="STUDY"
dns_domainname="STUDY"
dns_domain_name="STUDY"
domain_name="STUDY"
domainname="STUDY"

as well as:

nis_domain="STUDY"
nis_domain_lo="STUDY"
nis_domain_name . . . 
. . . etc

and then probably some other expletives that currently elude me.  :p

> >> I'm afraid it gives nothing!
> >
> > It sounds like dns_domain is not set.
>
> Considering that I have tried it ... I know it not to work, so I have
> little doubt that he tried it himself.  This isn't hard to reproduce
> guys ....
>
> Tom

I seem to be at a loss as to how to set it up.  Please tell me, should I have 
a /etc/conf.d/domainname under the current baselayout, or not.  Could it be 
that this is causing confusion in my system?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 13:51, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Have you set the dns_domain in conf.d/net?
>
> I have tried this and it does NOT work.
>
> >> I'm afraid it gives nothing!
> >
> > It sounds like dns_domain is not set.
>
> Considering that I have tried it ... I know it not to work, so I have
> little doubt that he tried it himself.  This isn't hard to reproduce
> guys ....

Wey, hey!  I fixed it. :)

The problem was the order of entries in the /etc/hosts file; localhost should 
be *last* in the order of names entered.  This works:

127.0.0.1   <username.domain>   <username>  locahost

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]