[Dnsmasq-discuss] Dnsmasq version is displayed as "UNKNOWN" on complied version

[Abhishek Patti]

Hi

We needed dnsmasq to have capability of SRV caching, so I have complied
dnsmasq from source using following dockerfile

"
FROM ubuntu:bionic
MAINTAINER "Abhishek Patti <abpatti at cisco.com>"

RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y gettext libnetfilter-conntrack-dev
libidn2-dev libdbus-1-dev libgmp-dev nettle-dev libbsd-dev liblua5.2-dev
build-essential devscripts
COPY dnsmasq ./
RUN debuild -b -uc -us

"
this gives me dnsmasq_2.81-1_all.deb

however when i upgrade existing/running version of dnsmasq (2.79) on ubuntu
and run command "dnsmasq --version:, it upgraded successfully but shows
"UNKNOWN"

" dnsmasq --version
Dnsmasq version UNKNOWN  Copyright (c) 2000-2020 Simon Kelley
Compile time options: IPv6 GNU-getopt DBus no-UBus i18n IDN2 DHCP DHCPv6
no-Lua TFTP conntrack ipset auth DNSSEC loop-detect inotify dumpfile

This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
Dnsmasq is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or 3."

Please let me know




On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:05 AM <
dnsmasq-discuss-request at lists.thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:

> Send Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         dnsmasq-discuss-request at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         dnsmasq-discuss-owner at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Dnsmasq-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Active-passive failover for dnsmasq with ldirectord
>       (Tom Fernandes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 22:32:28 +0100
> From: Tom Fernandes <anyaddress at gmx.net>
> To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Active-passive failover for dnsmasq
>         with ldirectord
> Message-ID: <602f303e-0198-b3b2-fd4f-3d684d08af5e at gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi again,
>
> are there some points in my description that are unclear?
>
> Feedback concerning this setup is very much appreciated!
>
> Warm regards,
>
>
> Tom
>
> On 23/01/2020 15:08, Tom Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I read the old threads regarding dnsmasq and high availability and would
> > like to know if the following setup is possible or if I'm missing
> something.
> >
> > Master: dnsmasq A (192.168.1.10)
> > Slave: dnsmasq B (192.168.1.20)
> >
> > Loadbalancer virtual IP in ldirectord 192.168.1.30
> >
> > The clients use the virtual IP 192.168.1.30 as their nameserver.
> >
> > Host A is a "normally" configured dnsmasq server which also offers DHCP.
> >
> > Host B is configured the same way like server A with addition of an
> > iptables rule which blocks incoming DHCP-Requests.
> >
> > The configuration files + the DHCP leases file are on a shared
> > (active-active) Cluster-FS available to A and B.
> >
> > ldirectord is configured with with one realserver (A) and one fallback
> > server (B). In this configuration a connection to 192.168.1.30 will only
> > lookup records from host A (as long as A is alive).
> >
> > When A goes down, the following will happen:
> > 1) The fallback server B will be used when clients lookup records from
> > 192.168.1.30
> > 2) The loadbalancer will connect (through ldirectords "fallbackcommand"
> > with the "start" parameter) via SSH to server B and remove the iptables
> > rule which blocks incoming DHCP requests and will restart dnsmasq.
> >
> > Now server B is offering DHCP and DNS requests in the same way like
> > server A was doing before.
> >
> > When server A gets online again the "fallbackcommand" on the
> > loadbalancer is called again (this time with the "stop" parameter). It
> > will now connect to server A and restart dnsmasq and to server B and set
> > the iptables rule again to block incoming DHCP requests. Server B will
> > become the fallback server again.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> > Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Dnsmasq-discuss Digest, Vol 176, Issue 36
> ************************************************
>


-- 
abhishek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20200131/fe9f23ce/attachment.html>