udhcp and busybox

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:09:15PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 27 March 2006 10:19 am, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:55:38AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > > Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:22:12PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > >>> So you have two options - either
> > > >>> delete the current gateway first or don't add another gateway.  I
> > > >>> agree, using the udhcp nameservers is not as important.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, if it supplies one I'll happily modify /etc/resolv.conf.  I can
> > > >> see a command line option telling it not to do that, though.
> > > >
> > > > I'm just a user, but I'm strongly against dhcp clients overwriting
> > > > system config files by default. Just because all the broken mainstream
> > > > ones do it doesn't mean its a good idea.
> > >
> > > I'm just curious, because I'm always been irritated about dhcp clients
> > > modifying the /etc/resolv.conf file. Do you have any better suggestions
> > > how a dhcp client should set the nameservers without modifying
> > > /etc/resolv.conf?
> >
> > Yes. I keep a fixed known-good nameserver in resolv.conf and use that
> > regardless of what network I'm on. On many systems this is 127.0.0.1
> > and I don't want dhcpcd changing it to some slow remote server...
> 
> I think the busyboxish way to deal with this is to have 
> updating /etc/resolv.conf be a compile time configuration option.  If you 
> don't like it, configure it out. :)

Excellent! If I can eliminate the wasted space from code that does
things I dislike, that's even better.

Rich