From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 27 04:22:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2616314 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 04:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from luigi.brtsvcs.net (luigi.brtsvcs.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:1f00::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4C1C1D03 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 04:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chombo.houseloki.net (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:21c:c0ff:fe7f:96ee]) by luigi.brtsvcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6092B2D4FAE; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:b40d:eb14:4f81:f42f] (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:b40d:eb14:4f81:f42f]) by chombo.houseloki.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9330F88F; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:22:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E5DF02.4010500@bluerosetech.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:22:26 -0800 From: Darren Pilgrim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Julian H. Stacey" , Frank Leonhardt Subject: Re: Why was nslookup removed from FreeBSD 10? References: <201401261420.s0QEKKMn080851@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201401261420.s0QEKKMn080851@fire.js.berklix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 04:22:18 -0000 On 1/26/2014 6:20 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > The rationale for bind removal from src/ I thought ill advised; it won't > suprise me if FreeBSD gets roasted for no longer being net server ready. The irony being that if you were at all serious about running mail, DNS, NTP, etc., you used a port because the in-base versions were old and could not be easily upgraded in the event of security problems. This is one of many points made during the discussion on removing BIND from the base.