[Dnsmasq-discuss] Feature Request(s)
simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Fri Mar 16 10:10:11 GMT 2012
On 15/03/12 22:22, Rob Zwissler wrote:
> Consistency is always nice, so the choice is between consistent behavior
> across hosts & dnsmasq.conf style configs, or consistent behavior within
> dnsmasq.conf, I'd vote for the latter, so expand-hosts would be ignored
> for host-record.
> If it does expand it it for host-record but not txt-record, etc, that
> seems somewhat un-intuitive.
> Perhaps a second expand-host-record to separately enable that? Or a
> more general expand-records (?) directive that would work for
> host-record, txt-record, etc...
Hmm, maybe. I have a feeling that this is getting complex, especially as
the domain added depends on --domain, which can be address-dependent.
expand-hosts for /etc/hosts has the justification that (some) OS's work
that way when using /etc/hosts outside dnsmasq, for dnsmasq-exclusive
config, I'm inclined to keep it simple, especially as it's possible to
include a simple name and an expanded name in the same line
host-record=laptop, laptop.thekelleys.org.uk, 192.168.0.1
> The bind behavior with default expansion and a . to override seems nice,
> simple & intuitive, what about a expand-bind-style directive to turn
> that behavior on, so as not to break existing syntax, but give that fine
> grained control to people who want it?
That breaks the rule that syntactically different configurations should
vary by more than one pixel ;-). Missing the period at the end of a name
in a BIND file is almost as annoying as mixing spaces and tabs in a
I've got the host-record syntax above working fine. I'll update the man
page and changelog later today an push it out for you to play with.
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss