Hi Simon, On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: > The overriding objection to this is that it adds to the syntax and > semantics of the resolv-file format, but dnsmasq doesn't "own" that > format: it's actually a libc configuration file, and dnsmasq takes > advantage of the fact that the format is "well known" to extract useful > information from it. If you start adding extra fields to > /etc/resolv.conf then the c-library will get upset.
I have been thinking some more about this. The reason for locking the support for server-strings in the resolv behind a command line option, was to avoid what you are describing here - compatibility issues with the existing resolv-file format. I assume that if anyone enables the option, they know what they are doing and what implications it might have. I should maybe have explained this better in either the commit or the addition to the man-page. > I understand the desire to be able to specify resolvers dynamically with > the full set of source-address and routing options; that's actually > already available, and has been for a long time, using the DBus > interface to dnsmasq, which includes the "SetDomainServers" method, > which takes strings identical to argument to --server. I've not looked > at the code, but your previous patch to allow binding both IP and > interface should have automatically added that feature to > SetDomainServers. (if it didn't then I'd certainly take a patch to > correct that.) I did a quick test and it seems that specifying servers (with the additional interface/ip-information) using the DBus-interface works fine. However, this does not help on systems not using DBus (like OpenWRT/LEDE). Do you have any suggestions for an acceptable way to implement this feature, without requiring the use DBus? Thanks in advance for the help, Kristian _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss