Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 10:16:30 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Leslie Jensen <leslie@eskk.nu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unbound in FreeBSD 10 Message-ID: <20150103101630.c29c3bb4.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <54A7AD7C.5090807@eskk.nu> References: <54A7A35B.8070201@eskk.nu> <20150103094040.0cc0f867.freebsd@edvax.de> <54A7AD7C.5090807@eskk.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:51:08 +0100, Leslie Jensen wrote: > I did try to replace dig with drill in the scripts. It did not work. > I'll try your suggestion with a symlink. There is a certain grade of compatibility, but it may not be 100 percent identical regarding options or output. > Your suggestion of using bind has crossed my mind. After reading up on > unbound I can understand the reason to the change. On network systems I maintain, I usually tend to install bind from ports and use that. The advantage is that scripts using dig will continue working as long as there isn't too much hardcoded paths. Additionally, symlinking /usr/bin/dig@ -> /usr/local/bin/dig is less of a problem than trying /usr/bin/dig@ -> /usr/bin/drill (simply because it's a different program). The version in ports is also current and can be updated if required by the usual means (pkg or portmaster) and can be maintained independently from the OS. > I've been goggling for quite a while to find descriptions on how to use > Unbound but very little useful information has turned up. I keep using unbound on workstations and home machines and laptops, for all purposes where I don't need more than a simple resolver. For everything else, see bind. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150103101630.c29c3bb4.freebsd>