Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:11:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208211705380.78446@ai.fobar.qr> In-Reply-To: <86a9xobo2c.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <CAL409Kzjjaur5%2B1gGh7VtTdg5M1zjLpZ-kmm8%2BrWv%2Bw9ua%2B14A@mail.gmail.com> <5031FAAB.9020409@FreeBSD.org> <86a9xobo2c.fsf@ds4.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>> Dag-Erling, do you have a timeline for getting started on the
>> ldns/unbound import?
>
> I imported the code into the vendor tree, but did not proceed any
> further as there was still no firm consensus at the time.
>
> I believe the conclusion - to the extent that there was one - was that
> people were fine with tossing out BIND and importing ldns to replace the
> client bits, as long as we had suitable drop-in replacements for host(1)
> and dig(1), but there was no consensus on whether to import unbound.
>
> I'll start working on getting ldns into head this weekend.
I think ldns really is not what we want; can you defer this for a week
and we could chat in person, also wtih brooks around, next week?
There is a wwaayy larger thing to the picture of resolver libraries,
exspecially validating once, which includes standardization,
acceptance, application support, etc. and I admit there should be a
summary of that on the wiki but isn't yet as some of the things only
very last-weekishly materialized for real for us.
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1208211705380.78446>