[Dnsmasq-discuss] Struggling with multiple nameservers
dl6er at dl6er.de
Sun Jan 12 19:48:53 GMT 2020
I may speak up as the main developer of Pi-hole's dnsmasq fork. We
embed dnsmasq into our daemon. The "dnsmasq -v" functionality is not
"gone", it just moved one step away as dnsmasq is only contained and
not the main application in our setup.
So this statement is simply not true.
> The pihole derivative has lost that rather useful feature, so
exactly what options it has been complied with is hard to tell.
to get the version of our daemon.
pihole-FTL -- -v
to get the version of the embedded dnsmasq.
I can already tell you that it will bring up
> Dnsmasq version pi-hole-2.80 Copyright (c) 2000-2018 Simon Kelley
> Compile time options: IPv6 GNU-getopt no-DBus no-i18n no-IDN DHCP
DHCPv6 no-Lua TFTP no-conntrack ipset auth DNSSEC loop-detect inotify
This issue has been extensively discussed here as well:
and I have to admit that it's still not clear what was/is the error but
it looks like a user induced one. Also because the problem just
"disappeared" after some config changes that, apparently, cannot be
isolated any more.
I also already mentioned how to obtain the embedded dnsmasq's version
here on Jan 1st, 2020:
which was one week before the original poster claimed that we removed
this intentionally ... interesting to see how perspectives can differ.
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 16:40 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:33:43PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 04:37:32PM +0000, Harry Moyes wrote:
> > > On 08/01/2020 14:47, wkitty42 at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On 1/7/20 2:10 PM, Harry Moyes wrote:
> > > > > dnsmasq very usefully reports the compiled in options with
> > > > > the -v flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > The pihole derivative has lost that rather useful feature, so
> > > > > exactly what options it has been complied with is hard to
> > > > > tell.
> > > >
> > > > personally speaking, i'd see what it would take to regain that
> > > > functionality by contacting the pihole devs and bringing this
> > > > defect to
> > > > their attention and possibly use your situation as an
> > > > example...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've already mentioned this to the developers.
> > Any prove of that?
> > > The change is apparently intentional.
> > Assumed or documented?
> My questions from above are indeed terse.
> Let me elaborate
> > > > I've already mentioned this to the developers.
> > >
> > > Any prove of that?
> That question was written in the hope of getting an URL or email
> where can be read what was mentioned to the pihole developers.
> I still hope such email or URL pops up. The idea is to ask,
> differently as previously, to regain the lost functionality.
> Geert Stappers
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss