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

On 07/08/2012 07:41, Dan Lukes wrote:
>> 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.

Sorry, you're not understanding what is being proposed. Specifically
you're confusing the system stub resolver (the bit that's compiled into
libc, and used by binaries) and the resolving name server (BIND). No one
is proposing to replace the stub.

> 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"

No one is suggesting anything similar to what you're concerned about.

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection

_______________________________________________
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"