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 so that its enslaved dnsmasq listens on non-loopback addresses too. Once this is implemented the network-manager package could be made to Conflict with the dnsmasq package.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: Local resolver prohibits DNS servers from running Status in “dnsmasq” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in “network-manager” package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: As described in https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-p-dns- resolving, network manager now starts a dnsmasq instance for local DNS resolving. That breaks the default bind9 and dnsmasq installations, for people that actually want to install a DNS server. Having to manually comment out "#dns=dnsmasq" in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf doesn't sound good, and if it stays that way, it should be moved to the bind9 and dnsmasq postinst scripts. Please make network-manager smarter so that it checks if bind9 or dnsmasq are installed, so that it doesn't start the local resolver in that case. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/959037/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
