Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:18:35 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound Message-ID: <86a9xobo2c.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <5031FAAB.9020409@FreeBSD.org> (Doug Barton's message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:51:55 -0700") References: <CAL409Kzjjaur5%2B1gGh7VtTdg5M1zjLpZ-kmm8%2BrWv%2Bw9ua%2B14A@mail.gmail.com> <5031FAAB.9020409@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> writes: > Dag-Erling, do you have a timeline for getting started on the > ldns/unbound import? I imported the code into the vendor tree, but did not proceed any further as there was still no firm consensus at the time. I believe the conclusion - to the extent that there was one - was that people were fine with tossing out BIND and importing ldns to replace the client bits, as long as we had suitable drop-in replacements for host(1) and dig(1), but there was no consensus on whether to import unbound. I'll start working on getting ldns into head this weekend. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86a9xobo2c.fsf>