On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 07:25 -0600, Jima wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > This is *exactly* what dnsmasq is designed for. From what I can tell, > > the author added dbus support to dnsmasq *specifically* so > > NetworkManager could use it. I'm not sure what's up with the disconnect > > here. :) > > Maybe not NM specifically, but certainly conceptually: > > "Added method support for DBus (http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/dbus) > This is a superior way to re-configure dnsmasq on-the-fly with different > upstream nameservers, as the host moves between networks. DBus support > must be enabled in src/config.h and should be considered experimental at > this point. See DBus-interface for the specification of the DBus method > calls supported." http://osdir.com/ml/network.networkmanager.devel/2005-04/msg00023.html http://osdir.com/ml/network.networkmanager.devel/2005-05/msg00012.html http://osdir.com/ml/network.networkmanager.devel/2005-04/msg00036.html The dnsmasq author was very eager to have dnsmasq used by NM back in 2005. I haven't found any explanation as to why it didn't happen. Here's a nice fresh thread, it even links back to this one: http://www.nabble.com/nm-with-dnsmasq--t4940689.html They seem really dead set on sticking with bind. Seriously, why?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part