Re: local nameserver support

[Daniel Gryniewicz <dang fprintf net>]

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 14:50 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> 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?


Let me qualify.  Gentoo doesn't install bind on every install.  You have
to install it separately.  So, since I have to install something anyway,
I would very much prefer dnsmasq to bind.

Daniel