Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:35 -0600 From: "Samuel J. Greear" <sjg@evilcode.net> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound Message-ID: <CANY-Wm_YrJ2k4JCHK4oJ4wHS_h6g5JasrSD35hqYQwb6e2rGzg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5033D9D7.808@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAL409Kzjjaur5%2B1gGh7VtTdg5M1zjLpZ-kmm8%2BrWv%2Bw9ua%2B14A@mail.gmail.com> <5031FAAB.9020409@FreeBSD.org> <86a9xobo2c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208211705380.78446@ai.fobar.qr> <5033C7BB.1040702@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208211751580.78446@ai.fobar.qr> <5033D9D7.808@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 8/21/2012 11:08 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > >>> Neither importing ldns nor removing BIND is going to have any effect on >>> the stub resolver library in libc. >> >> Yes it does as if we are not carefull, we'll neither have a _proper_ >> validating caching resolver but 4 different resolver libraries 3 of >> which needing crypto and only 2 with a well known support plan and >> only 2 with the same interface in base. > <snip> Just a data point. DragonFly removed BIND from base in favor of ldns/drill in June of 2010, there has not been any quantifiable fallout. We did not bring in unbound and there are no plans to do so. Samhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANY-Wm_YrJ2k4JCHK4oJ4wHS_h6g5JasrSD35hqYQwb6e2rGzg>