On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 13:55 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 11:59 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 10:49 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > > > > > How about something smaller and faster than bind, such as dnsmasq? > > > > I used BIND because most OSes ship it. I'm open to investigation of > > other alternatives such as dnsmasq, maradns, etc. In particular I'm > > interested in DNS servers which provide a shared library for running > > them in-process. > > > > But I'd rather focus on getting the rest of the architecture working > > than replacing what currently exists in order to just e.g. save a bit of > > memory. > > Well, my suggestion was because of distros like gentoo that don't ship > bind. Really? http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?bind-9.2.2-r4 > How about adding invoking the dns server to the distro-specific backend? > That way, gentoo could make it depend on dnsmasq, or something, rather > than on bind. Why specifically would you prefer dnsmasq, given that Gentoo does apparently ship bind?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part