[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
* Some thinking about[0][1], if not much coding of[2], a successor to ifupdown was done in the netconf project[3] led by Debian Developer martin krafft[4][5]. [0]http://people.debian.org/~madduck/talks/netconf_fosdem_2007.02.25/slides.s5.html [1]http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/netconf-dev

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-07 Thread Thomas Hood
What lies behind the problem being discussed here is the simple fact that there exists no single adequate network configuration utility for GNU/Linux. I am most familiar with Debian. From Debian we inherit ifupdown which was designed for static configuration. Debian developers have known for mor

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Thomas, that was a very good summary at comment #33! > Why do you need the dnsmasq package at all? You want NM and dnsmasq. Why not just use the NM-enslaved dnsmasq? The NM-enslaved dnsmasq uses hardcoded options (in C) that provide extremely limited functionality. * It doesn't listen on ethX (

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Hmm, I wasn't very clear. What I meant in my questions above (#34) was this. If NM+dnsmasq is the best solution for name service for the local host, isn't it also a better solution than NM-together-with-standalone- dnsmasq for remote hosts? If so then another solution approach is to enhance NM s

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis: Why do you need the dnsmasq package at all? You want NM and dnsmasq. Why not just use the NM-enslaved dnsmasq? If the latter doesn't meet your needs, could it be adapted somehow to meet your needs? Assuming that there are good reasons for using NM and standalone dnsmasq, I'd be inclined

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Thomas Hood
I just re-read the whole discussion and thought it would be useful (for me, at least) to summarize it. The original bug report was that NM+dnsmasq and standalone dnsmasq are incompatible because they have overlapping network socket address ranges, 0.0.0.0:53 and 127.0.0.1:53. One solution is for

[Bug 959037] Re: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running

2012-06-06 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
@Thomas: cool, I hope this one's better. ** Summary changed: - Don't start local resolver if a DNS server is installed + Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubun