systemd-resolved is the way to go moving forward.
Are there downsides or compatibility issues with setting
resolve to the
hosts line makes sense to use systemd-resolved, but the wiki indicates
More generally, what “should” the
hosts line look like? Mine is:
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns myhostname
as in this Fedora blog article https://fedoramagazine.org/find-systems-easily-lan-mdns/
Aside from wondering if this line could be the source of my (other) samba/windows network/printer visibility issues, I’m confused by the [STATUS=ACTION] line.
The blog states:
Notice the commands mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return]. They tell your system to use the multicast DNS resolver to resolve a hostname to an IP address. Even if that service works, the remaining services are tried if the name doesn’t resolve.
What I understand from this explanation is that if the preceding service succeeds but finds no result, the system should try the subsequent services.
This is bizarre to me since “return” in programming means to quit that function, and also because I would think this specification would be necessary after each service if this description is true.
In contrast the man page says:
Optional actions to perform if a particular result is obtained from the preceding service, e.g., “[NOTFOUND=return]”.
Return a result now. Do not call any further lookup functions.
If I understand correctly, any services following
[NOTFOUND=return] are not used if, eg.
ndns4_minimal does not find a result. Why would anything be listed after this option anyway?