[Dnsmasq-discuss] Change in dnsmasq.leases behaviour?

[Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant]

On 10/02/2013 15:49, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
> Hi, Kevin
> probably it's because while dnsmasq upgrading, tomato-specific patches
> were rollbacked/missed, one of them includes custom lease expiration
> time. if you're interested, take a look at dnsmasq changes in recent
> asuswrt fws. thay have what you want.
> another solution will be drop patching and disable have_broken_rtc
> define - different issues, different story.
>
> Best regards, Vladislav Grishenko
>
Ahhhhh!  The light dawns, thanks Vladislav.

I've just done a diff between tomato dnsmasq 2.61 & tarball dnsmasq 2.61
and indeed they're not the same.

Oh boy, for a non linux & non c programmer how deep this rabbit hole
goes!  Hmmmm.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3768 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20130210/cd830e0e/attachment.bin>