[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: BIND will completely drop D-BUS dynamic forwarders table support



On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 18:11 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> 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?

Who is this they?  I'm probably this "they" :)

I'm not dead-set on anything; dnsmasq is fine.  It didn't happen because
back then, I didn't have time to make it happen, and dnsmasq wasn't in
Fedora at that point, and nobody else came up with a patch to make it
happen.

I'm willing to take a patch to put support for dnsmasq into NM in the
same way that the named stuff is there, but ideally I want to rework the
DNS handling to be more flexible.  People these days want to handle the
DNS updates differently, from udpating resolv.conf directly, to use
dbus-enabled caching-nameservers, to using resolvconf (on SUSE and
Debian).  We support 1.5 of those out of 3, and that's not good enough.
But to get where we'd like to go, NM needs to have more flexibility in
the DNS information handling.

Dan



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]