On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:59, Howard Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm. So what exactly did you mean by saying "the user needs some level of > control over which connections are allowed to update resolv.conf" ?
Certainly not control of packet routing. All I meant by that statement, and it's hard for me to imagine you can see it any other way, is that NM users need a level of control over which connections touch resolv.conf. If you recall, prior to that single statement you quoted, I had suggested three options (global, connection, connection type). None of that implies anything close to the left field you have drug this thread into. > Yes, it's a good idea to have control over how nameserver info received from > various interfaces gets used by the local machine. But trying to slot any of > those controls into /etc/resolv.conf is futile. <sigh> You really don't understand the issue myself and others have pressed for. > I'm not insisting you use dnsmasq. I'm just trying to make sure you > understand that inventing complex policies over what content makes it into > /etc/resolv.conf is not useful. Policies for control of nameserver info can > be better implemented elsewhere; dnsmasq is a working example of that. You don't need to try and make sure that I understand anything. I didn't start commenting on this thread seeking input, rather I commented on this thread to post input. Input that clearly was understood by at least one other person who agreed with my premise. > Now, maybe we can work together to define what controls are needed, and then > we can get some new code written for the purpose. I somehow doubt that. My earlier suggestions, seconded by Trey, have escaped your understanding. Best wishes, -Jim P. _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
