From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 28 10:34:14 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306B2F3A for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:34:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bede.qeng-ho.org (bede.qeng-ho.org [217.155.128.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7BCE1869 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arthur.home.qeng-ho.org (arthur.home.qeng-ho.org [172.23.1.2]) by bede.home.qeng-ho.org (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t3SAY132068306; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:34:01 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org) Message-ID: <553F6219.40701@qeng-ho.org> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:34:01 +0100 From: Arthur Chance User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Leonhardt , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dig command ? References: <552001C0.6040304@gmail.com> <553EA687.2040602@fjl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <553EA687.2040602@fjl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:34:14 -0000 On 27/04/2015 22:13, Frank Leonhardt wrote: > On 04/04/2015 16:22, Ernie Luzar wrote: >> running 10.1 and went to use the dig command and its no longer part of >> the system. Why was it removed? > > As other's have said, this was removed (actually in 10.0) because it was > compiled as part of BIND, and that was removed. You'll find nslookup has > also gone, but host (which also part of BIND) is still there. > > BIND was considered over-kill as part of the base system, but it's still > available in ports. This doesn't explain how the "host" utility escaped > remained part of the base system, It didn't. What we've got now is a clone of host supplied by the unbound software. No, I've no idea why they didn't clone nslookup and dig as well. :-( -- Those who do not learn from computing history are doomed to GOTO 1