Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:12:07 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound Message-ID: <5031FF67.80000@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208200852420.78446@ai.fobar.qr> References: <CAL409Kzjjaur5%2B1gGh7VtTdg5M1zjLpZ-kmm8%2BrWv%2Bw9ua%2B14A@mail.gmail.com> <5031FAAB.9020409@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208200852420.78446@ai.fobar.qr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/20/2012 01:55, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> We will continue to reject this until there are more firm plans,
> proper documentation on the security support side, which I cannot
> remember Simon got an answer for.
I gave a clear answer. If there are any pieces missing it's up to Simon
to follow up with Dag-Erling.
> I continue to say that I am not willing to trade one for another
> for the sake of just changing the name.
Have you seriously not been paying attention to the numerous reasons why
BIND in the base is no longer a good fit?
In any case, importing ldns/unbound is a different question from
removing BIND. Not only do I not see any reason not to move forward on
the former, I think that once people see a solid implementation in place
already it will ease the fears about removing BIND.
Doug
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5031FF67.80000>