Re: local nameserver support

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.  


> 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

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