On 02/06/2013 02:29 AM, Tomas Hozza wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 02/05/2013 03:13 PM, Tomas Hozza wrote:
I can do that and doing my best in Fedora and RHEL.
I had not noticed your email address until just now. It is Fedora
and RHEL that I had in mind but, IIRC, there are other distributions that
have non-current dnsmasq. As far as that goes, Fedora 17 had
dnsmasq-2.59 until I griped about it and then the updates were
promptly made.
I'm maintaining dnsmasq only since 2012-10-22. I can't tell how it
was before. Maintainers also have more than one package to look after
so we have to prioritize work to fix more serious bugs first.
With something link dnsmasq it pays to keep as "currrent" as you can.
I agree. I noticed this during last couple of months, too.
Some of this is due to additional exploit of dnsmasq fucntionality such
as doing both DHCP and RA services for IPv6 in the latest libvirt
(1.0.2). Dnsmasq needed some fixes so that it worked correctly. It was
interesting working both the libvirt and the dnsmasq sides so that they
were both marching to the same music.
The only problem I currently have with dnsmasq is that there is no
predictable way to have a system assigned as specific IPv6 address the
way you can with IPv4 (MAC). When everything is working, it is OK but
if something disturbs that (boot up on a different address) and it
requires manual intervention to get things back in sync.
Gene
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
