[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 490 add DNS lookup to new hosts/services

[Rob Crittenden]

Dmitri Pal wrote:
> Adam Young wrote:
>> On 07/30/2010 04:02 PM, Adam Young wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2010 02:25 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>>> Make sure that the host behind new host and service records is
>>>> actually a resolvable DNS A record. There is a --force flag if you
>>>> know what you are doing (or just feel like charging ahead anyway).
>>>>
>>>> We use a lot of made-up names in the self-tests, had to add the
>>>> force flag to all of them.
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Freeipa-devel mailing list
>>>> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
>>> I can't get this patch to apply:
>>>
>>> [ayoung at ayoung freeipa]$ git apply ~/Documents/IPA/freeipa-490-dns.patch
>>> error: patch failed: ipalib/util.py:28
>>> error: ipalib/util.py: patch does not apply
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've tried it both with and without patch 484
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Freeipa-devel mailing list
>>> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
>>
>> OK, disregard that,  I was able to apply it on top of 484, build and
>> deploy.
>>
>> I'd give it an ACK except that I can't figure out how to work around 
>> service-add where the service is not yet resolvable.  I understand
>> that this is not desired, but I'm fairly certain that not being able
>> to do this will mess up someone. 
>>
>> ipa service-add-host --force --hosts=web.example.com HTTP/web.example.com
>> Usage: ipa [global-options] service-add-host PRINCIPAL
>>
>> ipa: error: no such option: --force
>>
> 
> The --force should be an option. And if it does not resolve but internal
> DNS is used then there should be an option to add it to the DNS.
> 
> So I guess the logic should be:
> 1) No options and the host resolves -> success
> 2) No options and the host does not resolve -> failure
> 3) --force is specified and the host resolves -> success (force is ignored)
> 4) --force is specified and the host does not resolve -> host is added as is
> 5) --dns is specified but we do not use internal DNS -> failure invalid
> parameter
> 6) --dns is specified and we use internal DNS and the host resolves ->
> host is added to the hosts and host is not added to dns since it is
> already there
> 7) --dns is specified and we use internal DNS and the host does not
> resolve -> host is added to the hosts and to dns
> 
> NACK for now.

No, I don't want to interweave DNS in this way right now. DNS is more 
complex than automatically adding hosts would handle (an A record with 
no PTR is worse than no A record IMHO).

This was merely an option I didn't explicitly test so it got past me. 
I'll make sure --force works with service-add-host.

rob