Re: [patch] Support Debian's resolvconf

[Thomas Hood <jdthood aglu demon nl>]

Will Dyson wrote:
> Now, one could say that the real solution here is for Debian/Ubuntu
> packages of NetworkManager to Conflict: with resolvconf. But playing
> nice with resolvconf is so easy, I just don't understand the objection
> to it.

One advantage of resolvconf is that it already supports delivery of
nameserver addresses to dnsmasq and pdnsd as well as bind9.  It is
also compatible with nscd.  So if NM uses resolvconf then it doesn't
need to run its own private instance of named and the admin is free
to choose a local caching nameserver to go along with NM.

Clearly, the NM + slave named approach works -- I don't deny that.
I also admit that resolvconf doesn't add much value to a system that
is running NM (or, rather, a future NM that handles PPP interfaces).
However, it doesn't add much cost either.

In Ubuntu and Debian it appears that NM will be packaged to be
compatible with resolvconf.  Yesterday's upload of the
network-manager package to Breezy was supposed to have accomplished
that but unfortunately errors were committed and the NM binary in
that release won't run at all.  (See my post to ubuntu-devel.)
--
Thomas Hood