Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

[Avleen Vig]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2012 16:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > <<On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> said:
> >
> >> BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver
> >> configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for unbound
> >> (and which I would be glad to assist with if needed). Other than that,
> >> what integration are you concerned about?
> >
> > The utilities (specifically host(1) and dig(1)) are the only
> > user-visible interfaces I care about.  I don't see any need for there
> > to be an authoritative name server in the base system.  So long as the
> > resolver works properly and does DNSsec validation....
>
> I addressed the utils in a previous message, but once more ...
>
> ldns (a dependency of unbound) comes with drill, which is a dig-alike
> tool. I'd like to see us produce a host-alike based on ldns as well,
> which should be a pretty simple "junior hacker task" for a motivated group.
>
> If those don't do it for you, ports/dns/bind-tools already exists.

It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base. `host` and `dig` are
very standard tools most people expect to be available in base, just
as they are in the base/core/whatever of other operating systems.
I'm all for writing other tools based on ldns, but now you're talking
about doing things that create extra work for me, the end user, for
something that gives me very little gain (if any). I either have to
install bind-tools or rewrite scripts. And what do I get? Nothing I
really care about.

Think about the benefit to the end user before making such decisions.
Especially if you're talking about taking away something that is
already there and taken for granted.