Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream befor

> The ideal, long-term solution is to re-think what "The Base" is, and
> give users more flexibility at install time.

Flexibility is double-edged sword.

Feel free to replace one resolver with another resolver (but don't do it 
so often, please). Applications can be patched to fit new API, scripts 
can be modified to use other command-line utilities. It is OK for me, as 
long as it is rare big bang.

But "right to select one from N resolvers at install time" sounds like 
way to hell for me.

FreeBSD is known to be fast and reliable network server. Resolver is 
critical component. There should be ONE resolver in the base which is 
guaranteed to work with all other baseline utilities and script. Also, 
network related ports should compile against selected base resolver.

No problem if someone will replace system's resolver with another one 
from ports, but such administrator is just on it's own. He must be ready 
to resolve issues related to compatibility and reliability by self.

Can we maintain three (or so) resolvers to be perfectly compatible with 
all utilities and scripts in the base ? I don't think so.

I suspect that port maintainers will not maintain their ports compatible 
with all "recommended" resolvers as well.

I'm definitely not interested to make decisions like ...

"if I will select resolver A at install time, then utility X will not 
work correctly with them - it work with resolver B only, unfortunately, 
port P can't be compiled against resolver B because it's maintainer is 
using A only"

.... in the future.

Just my $0.02

Dan

P.S. English is not my native language, so look for ideas, not for grammar.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"