> It's better to eliminate the behavioral conflict, if we can, than to formalize that conflict as a packaging dependency.
I was about to say this: But then the main problem which caused me to report this bug would remain: When I install the dnsmasq package, it wouldn't work. I'd configure my dnsmasq, then put 127.0.0.1 as the DNS server for my LTSP client sessions on the server, and another dnsmasq would answer which wouldn't contain my configuration, my A or MX records or whatever else I'd put in my configuration file. ...but then I thought of this, which if it worked, I wouldn't have problems: If nm + resolvconf managed to properly chain the 2 dnsmasq instances, so that the NM-spawned dnsmasq was contacted first in another address or port or IPv6 or whatever, and then the NM-spawned dnsmasq contacted my real dnsmasq at 127.0.0.1, since it's the DNS server I declared at my connection properties, then it would at least work as expected, with just a small additional overhead. I wouldn't mind about that. And it would work with any DNS server too, not with just dnsmasq. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/djbdns/+bug/959037/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
