On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:53:04PM +0200, Gregor Best wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 07:03:59PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > [...] > > I'm uncertain about whether dhclient should do this at all, it seems > > to be the opposite of the direction dhclient has been going in > > recently, > > [...] > > I've had a similar intuition at first, but it's one less thing to run > versus the "monitor lease file" approach and it only calls one static > external command with relatively fixed parameters instead of what the > removed `script' option did. In the end, it's a matter of personal > taste, I think.
Indeed, I prodded krw@ to have a look / final say. If it's inaproriate for dhclient we might re-consider this for the magical "manage-network-daemon" if/when it shows up. As far as I'm concerned having unbound run on localhost is a sensible setup. Btw. my use case is for stupid networks that require that you use their resolvers. -- I'm not entirely sure you are real.
