Read against hal/modules/dnsmasq-app (hal dnsmasq-app conversion, hq 08-connectivity).
On the machines it runs, the predecessor's dnsmasq answers every name: the mesh's own
itself, the rest forwarded to 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8, its module's defaults; resolv.conf
names it alone at 127.0.0.1, and the container runtime's dns is the machine's tunnel
address, so the host and every container resolve the world through it. The nox module
forwarded nothing, listened on 127.0.0.55 — a convention of its own beside the one every
machine already followed — and read a machines file that the module's `facts` already
asks the mesh for, so taking it would have left an adopted machine with a resolv.conf
pointing at an address nothing answered on, and no upstream for anything else.
Now the resolver keeps `no-resolv` (the documented loop — finding its own address in
resolv.conf and becoming its own upstream — stays impossible) and forwards to the same
two explicit upstreams; listens on mesh0 and 127.0.0.1, which systemd-resolved does not
hold; requires `mesh-addressing`, since its data is the mesh's addresses; and writes the
runtime's `dns` into daemon.json beside whatever the machine had (ADR 0102), at this
machine's own address — `${machine:address}`, new in the controller. The runtime is not
restarted for it: it reads the key at start, not on reload, and a restart stops every
container; on the machine this replaces the value is already there.
resolv-conf names the resolver alone, as the predecessor's file did; its placeholder second
line was a fallback nothing ever reached. resolved-split-dns follows the address. The
mesh's suffix as a local domain comes with the machines file, so a mesh name the resolver
does not know is refused here rather than asked upstream. mDNS is not carried: no module
does it and the design says mesh names are not multicast names.
Review of the registry work found it node-scoped: a second `distribution` on another
machine resolved cleanly there, and only afterwards did the mesh notice `artifact-store`
offered by two nodes, with every consumer elsewhere refusing to choose. Worse, a node-scoped
requirement with one candidate installs that candidate, so anything that wanted the store
beside it would have raised a fresh, empty store on the wrong machine first.
There is one store in a mesh, which was already the effective rule; the claim now says it
where a second one is assigned, by name, instead of leaving consumers to discover it.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
jschoubben