On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 13:53 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > 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"). With the pull method, it _would_ still be done on changes. The things that care listen for signals from NM about when the things change, and when they do, they pull the info out of NM. Nothing here needs to poll to get the info it wants. The situation I'm trying to avoid, here, is writing 4 different backends in NM for every single way that people want to handle their DNS information. 1 for named, 1 for dnsmasq, 1 for /etc/resolv.conf, and 1 for resolvconf on debian/suse. That's just pointless and I don't want to put the new flavor of the week in NetworkManager itself. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
