Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:09:18 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <20200616200918.33355616@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20200616163619.GA87881@exodus.zi0r.com> References: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <20200616163619.GA87881@exodus.zi0r.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:36:19 -0400 Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org> wrote: > On (06/16/20 08:14), Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >Ok, well, I just thought of one and not sure if it is an issue or > >not, doesng unbound have the ability to specify interfaces? If so > >those may not exist until NETWORKING has run? > > > > Unbound isn't really going to do anything useful without the network. > I don't think it is unreasonable that it should depend on NETWORKING. > > I think we're in an edge case here and, perhaps, a better solution > might be to have someone(tm) add in support in rc.conf to specify > dependency overrides. > > So, perhaps you could set: > > dhcpd_after="unbound" > > Which would factor into the rcorder processing and make sure that > dhcpd starts after unbound. > > This would allow people to fine-tune things when they run into cases > like this. Exactly my thoughts for a while now. There are more examples like this (e.g., you run a service and host the database in the same jail/on the same machine, you want to have a dependency on the database being up, etc.). Never found the time to look into it though. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200616200918.33355616>