[Dnsmasq-discuss] Do we support RFC4702?

2016-01-05 Thread Steven Maosheng Ren
Hi Folks, Does dnsmasq support RFC4702 and option 81? Thanks. -steven ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

[Dnsmasq-discuss] "bogus-priv by default" followup and more

2016-01-05 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello, back in October there was a discussion about enabling bogus-priv by default [1]. Since I'm late to the party I can't reply directly to that thread, so I'm creating a new one. I want to add that there is a RFC recommendation out there regarding this behavior, its RFC 6761 Sectio

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Matthias Fischer
Hi, On 05.01.2016 21:55, Matthias Andree wrote: That's not "without all patches". Sorry, you're right of course... But as far as I know, the ISC patch is needed for IPFire. Best, Matthias ___ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.the

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 05.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Matthias Fischer: > Hi, > > On 05.01.2016 20:11, Matthias Andree wrote: >>> >Building always stops with the exact same errors, regardless if I use >>> >'2.75' with a total of 41 patches by now, or the original >>> >'2.75test4'-source. >> Does either compile without t

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Matthias Fischer
Hi, On 05.01.2016 20:11, Matthias Andree wrote: >Building always stops with the exact same errors, regardless if I use >'2.75' with a total of 41 patches by now, or the original >'2.75test4'-source. Does either compile without third-party patches? Until now, it made no difference compiling "2

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 05.01.2016 um 02:13 schrieb Matthias Fischer: > Hi, > > sorry, this will be rather long... > > I'm trying to compile 'dnsmasq 2.75' (for use with 'IPFire 2.17 (i586) - > core95') with > all available patches but I'm always runnning into errors. > Michael Tremer gave me the hint to ask here. >

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Lonnie Abelbeck
On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Matthias Fischer wrote: > Hi, > > On 05.01.2016 17:05, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >> It seems you have disabled HAVE_DHCP with enabled HAVE_SCRIPT. >> >> Try disabling HAVE_SCRIPT in your build system... >> -- >> -e 's|#define HAVE_SCRIPT|//#d

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Matthias Fischer
Hi, On 05.01.2016 17:05, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: Hi Matthias, It seems you have disabled HAVE_DHCP with enabled HAVE_SCRIPT. Try disabling HAVE_SCRIPT in your build system... -- -e 's|#define HAVE_SCRIPT|//#define HAVE_SCRIPT|g' \ -- Thanks, but sorry, it seems that this worked only p

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hint needed: neither patched 'dnsmasq 2.75' nor '2.76test4' will compile

2016-01-05 Thread Lonnie Abelbeck
On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Matthias Fischer wrote: > Hi, > > sorry, this will be rather long... > > I'm trying to compile 'dnsmasq 2.75' (for use with 'IPFire 2.17 (i586) - > core95') with > all available patches but I'm always runnning into errors. ... > cd /usr/src/dnsmasq-2.76test4 && se

[Dnsmasq-discuss] Rewrite TTL on MX RR

2016-01-05 Thread Anthony Brodard
Hi list ! I don't know if it's expected or if it's a bug, but I have a strange behavior when I rewrite TTL values : some RR type keep upstream SSL (at least mx, txt and soa). For example : $ dig mx gmail.com ;; ANSWER SECTION: gmail.com. 1689 IN MX 10 alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. gmail.com.