Re: dnsmasq

[Jon Escombe <lists dresco co uk>]

Jim Popovitch wrote:

> See, there you go again.  Injecting a perceived feature request that
> no one in this thread has requested.  You really must come back to
> ground level and understand that NO ONE is asking you or NM for
> fine-grained name resolution control.  Nope, no one.    The only
> feature requested was for NM to provide a checkbox style boolean
> option to enable/disable resolv.conf updating (a'la DNSUpdate in Cisco
> VPNs) in NM Global options, individual connection settings, and
> (possibly) as an option per connection type (i.e. wired/wireless).
> NOTHING MORE.  No need to try and push people to use dnsmasq, no need
> to espouse your great knowledge of all things, no need for you to
> educate anyone.   In fact, a simple "Yes it can be done" or "No,
> that's impossible to implement" would have sufficed.

At the risk of interrupting one of the liveliest threads on this list 
for some time ;) - perhaps the issue is just one of semantics?

If you replace the feature request of "enable/disable resolv.conf 
updates" with "enable/disable DNS updates" on a per-connection basis 
then surely that's problem solved?

Whether you want these written directly into resolv.conf, or passed to 
your caching nameserver shouldn't really matter. One might be a better 
choice technically, but that's the distros/users choice to make...

Regards,
Jon