From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 18:22:19 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0591591 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x236.google.com (mail-wg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DFFC1E8E for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id x13so4672810wgg.21 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:22:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PxcP2ffDnoca3J4VLtX3X/hOkLJtsVhpqbuEQ0Jy6WI=; b=dA1FaSu41cymgHbyn4KlFATA9uM2at/egnl61HDk2kfQv8izK+1gqOhipE8cevwBS1 Sen+PdUc5pJGtWcABvTWd3zBsHdj5JIXx+faUR8Awk9U/2JO3/87Vy2jBZU9RnXmszlC EOBSgSnUAKn3cnGiC1DD67zRg3j5vltBqrsPRo0kxUYJ1kin/7xznG616L1+Z2OD/QPR d+IQTSDrvV57iqcgntH40gAzv5Y0kmT+o8KWM/0F+Obbv3P4C4Q76VClcZkdSqTksIOD NS+6RR5+b3IdpaD25932rZ5TpVcrMBWiPK00soNRct8oKMLqwiyyW1PuJ9g6Rh3vHlMv 2lJQ== X-Received: by 10.180.21.244 with SMTP id y20mr9593928wie.37.1390760537004; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (105.33.91.91.rev.sfr.net. [91.91.33.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm19054330wjw.18.2014.01.26.10.22.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:22:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E55257.6030901@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:22:15 +0100 From: David Demelier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why was nslookup removed from FreeBSD 10? References: <52E40CC4.6090401@fjl.co.uk> <201401252137.50132.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <52E41619.1000505@fjl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <52E41619.1000505@fjl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:22:19 -0000 On 25/01/2014 20:52, Frank Leonhardt wrote: > On 25/01/2014 19:37, Mark Tinka wrote: >> On Saturday, January 25, 2014 09:13:08 PM Frank Leonhardt >> wrote: >> >>> Unbelievable, but true - someone somewhere thought that >>> removing nslookup from the base system was the way to >>> go. >>> >>> Why? Can anyone shed any light on how this decision was >>> made? >> If you read: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.0R/relnotes.html >> >> Under the "2.3. Userland Changes" section, you will notice: >> >> "BIND has been removed from the base system. >> unbound(8), which is maintained by NLnet Labs, has >> been imported to support local DNS resolution >> functionality with DNSSEC. Note that it is not a >> replacement of BIND and the latest versions of BIND >> is still available in the Ports Collection. With >> this change, nslookup and dig are no longer a part >> of the base system. Users should instead use >> host(1) and drill(1) Alternatively, nslookup and >> dig can be obtained by installing dns/bind-tools >> port. [r255949]" >> >> So install /usr/ports/dns/bind-tools and you're a happy guy. >> >> As to the philosophy of it all, no point arguing. Fait >> accompli. >> >> Mark. > As you and Waitman both pointed out, nslookup IS part of BIND, yet as I > said in the diatribe following the question in my post, so is "host" and > that's still there. Also Windoze has nslookup but doesn't include BIND. > I agree there's no point arguing unless you know the rational behind > what appears an arbitrary decision; hence my question. Was this simply > an oversight or is there a thought-out reason for it that one can take > issue with? > > IIRC, nslookup was present in 4.3BSD, and I'm pretty sure it existed > before that. (That's BSD, not FreeBSD). Its relied on in scripts. The > reason for dropping it from the base system must be pretty spectacular. > > FreeBSD 10.0 might be better known as FreeBSD Vista, at this rate. > > Regards, Frank. > Please don't piss off, there was thousands of reasons for removing BIND from base. It generates at least 5 security advisories by year. FreeBSD has a great feature called "ports" / "packages". Of course it's always great to have a fully functional system just after an installation. But can you seriously use a FreeBSD fresh install? I think you need to install a bunch of packages before :-). So just a pkg install bind-tools is not so hard, isn't it? Regards, David.