Hmm, I wasn't very clear. What I meant in my questions above (#34) was this. If NM+dnsmasq is the best solution for name service for the local host, isn't it also a better solution than NM-together-with-standalone-dnsmasq for remote hosts? If so then another solution approach is to enhance NM so that its enslaved dnsmasq listens on non-loopback addresses too. Once this is implemented the network-manager package could be made to Conflict with the dnsmasq package.
Hmm, I wasn't very clear. What I meant in my questions above (#34) was this. If NM+dnsmasq is the best solution for name service for the local host, isn't it also a better solution than NM-together- with-standalone -dnsmasq for remote hosts? If so then another solution approach is to enhance NM so that its enslaved dnsmasq listens on non-loopback addresses too. Once this is implemented the network-manager package could be made to Conflict with the dnsmasq package.