On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Rodolfo D. wrote:
> I vote in favor of dnsmasq..
We all do. But I am leaning seriously towards F11.
> speaking of F11.. we read some issues regarding F9, and the whole
> infrastructure needed to build it.. I must admit that i understood less than
> half of it.. is
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> dnsmasq on lo only and point bind to the use lo as the forwarder. This
> requires dnsmasq to listen on 127.0.0.1 and bind on 172.18.0.1. The
> resolv.conf.in file wound need to be removed from git, so the OS could
> manage resolv.conf on its own
I vote in favor of dnsmasq..
speaking of F11.. we read some issues regarding F9, and the whole
infrastructure needed to build it.. I must admit that i understood less than
half of it.. is it related to the F9 base, or is it more related to XS
issues?
cheers.. R
2009/10/4 Jerry Vonau
> On Sun
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:01 +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> >I was thinking of a clean way to introduce the forward nameserver
> > info
> > for the nameservice that the XS provides. The nice way that dnsmasq uses
>
> I like dnsmasq, an
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> I was thinking of a clean way to introduce the forward nameserver info
> for the nameservice that the XS provides. The nice way that dnsmasq uses
I like dnsmasq, and I am liking it even more as time passes. The thing
is: I am looking at
