On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 06:28:27AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > NM shouldn't really care what the caching nameserver implementation is, > anything is fine. It just happens that the current bits talked to named > because patches for dnsmasq didn't materialize out of thin air. Plus > I'd like to rethink how NM interacts with nameservers (ideally, NM waits > for pulls, not pushes stuff out). No, it should stay a push. DNS configuration changes happen way less often than DNS lookups, so the communication should be done on changes (after an initial pull of course, which should include a "hi, I'm here, talk to me"). OG. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
