Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:45:39 -0400 From: Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org> To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <20200616184539.GA10414@exodus.zi0r.com> In-Reply-To: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <202006151358.05FDwo7X076921@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (06/15/20 16:35), Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: > > > Um, yea, I guess the bigger question is why is the port different > > than the base system in this respect? > >The the unbound port existed years before it was decided that unbound >should replace bind in the base system. > >If you want the port to change, send a PR for the port so I won't forget this. > > > > > I would expect unbound to be the same, as unbound_local in almost > > every respect, especially with respect to its startup sequencing, > > providers and requires. > >Not really. For a start, the port has a different default configuration >then the one in base. > > > > > > > I seen no problem in adding a BEFORE: NETWORKING to the port, covering > > > > a larger number of casses than your narrow BEFORE: dhcpd. > >I don't see a problem either. afaik unbound still tries to refresh its trust anchor at start (or can). This won't work without NETWORKING. -r > > > > >> On a related note, unbound rc script provides "unbound" service. > > > >> I think that maybe it should provide something more generic such as "nameserver" > > > >> or "dns-server" (not sure if there is an established name for that). > > > >> The reason I am saying this is that, IMO, if unbound is replaced with some other > > > >> name server implementation the rc dependency chains should stay the same. > > > > > > > > I do not see anything in the base system that uses unbound or local_unbound > > > > service name, so this looks like it could be straightforward, though there > > > > may be some ports that have use of this token. > > > > > > > > For the blue bikeshed I find that "server" is just noise in the token > > > > and that "dns" already has "s" for system, so just "dns" is good with me :-) > > > > > > That's a good point. > >I don't agree. The term dns is too generic. People are often running >dfferent nameservers on the same machine, as example: authoritative >and nonauthoritative (e.g. nsd & unbound). > >Regards, > > jaap -- Ryan Steinmetz PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228 EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200616184539.GA10414>