Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 14 Mar 2015 15:14:32 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 198581] dns/unbound: add aaaa-filter option from contrib patch within the source tarball
Message-ID:  <bug-198581-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198581

            Bug ID: 198581
           Summary: dns/unbound: add aaaa-filter option from contrib patch
                    within the source tarball
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Only Me
          Priority: ---
         Component: Individual Port(s)
          Assignee: sem@FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: darksoul@darkbsd.org
             Flags: maintainer-feedback?(sem@FreeBSD.org)
          Assignee: sem@FreeBSD.org

Created attachment 154300
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=154300&action=edit
Adds the AAAA_FILTER option to the config menu, along with patching from the
file contrib/aaaa-filter-iterator.patch which is in the unbound source

I have developed a patch recently to implement within unbound functionality
similar to BIND's "filter-aaaa" option.
This feature not being readily available is one major reason Japanese ISPs can
not leave BIND behind.
(Physical carriers such as NTT roll out their own in-house closed IPv6 routing,
over which ISPs have no control, if they don't themselves provide IPv6 service
to the customers)

It has been included in unbound's contrib/ starting with the latest version
(1.5.1), but was initially developped for version 1.4.17.
The patch applies properly on any version above so far, so I was thinking
adding a Makefile option, and a clause in the "post-patch:" section to apply
it.

I have included a proposal of Makefile, along with a diff explaining what
changes I have done.
I am willing to provide whatever help is required.

I was also wondering one thing, since the binaries generated will
ultimately be quite different, should the option alter the package name?

I have not done so, but I fear a miscalculated port update after tuning
repositories might have dramatic effects, so I thought one way to avoid
the headache would be to have a different package name.

Thanks in advance for your time,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-198581-13>