On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 17:36 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > Yes, that's quite possible, but the point is that I don't want bind on > my laptop, when something like dnsmasq is *better* for this purpose. I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion of "*better*" here. You mentioned "smaller and faster" earlier, but it's not clear to me that dnsmasq is smaller, since it has things like a DHCP server included. As for speed; I really doubt there is any measurable difference between the two for this purpose. The dnsmasq features page certainly doesn't make any claims about speed or size, mostly about ease of configuration. But with the way NetworkManager is using BIND, there is *no* configuration whatsoever. > (Does Fedora not have a dnsmasq package? I find that really hard to > believe...) Not in Core or Extras, no. > That would be fine with me, and would work fine with gentoo. You'd have > a use flag for dnsmasq and one for bind, and that would determine which > to depend on and build. Well, I'm personally going to work on the D-BUS interface, etc. first, but if someone wants to work on making the current nm-named-manager a GInterface I'd look at patches.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part