martin f krafft wrote: > I completely agree, unbound-host should replace/conflict host (which > is being removed) and bind9-host, or there should be an alternatives > entry coordinated between the various maintainers.
unbound-host isn't an alternative or replacement for bind9-host, IMO. one is a command line interface to a recursive DNS lookup library and one is a command line interface to an iterative DNS lookup library. i use both of them for different purposes, so i don't think unbound packages will ever conflict with bind9 packages. what exactly would be the use case for an alternatives entry for 'host'? if the use case is 'query a recursive DNS server for a record' then bind9-host and dnsqr from the djbdns package fit that description. if the use case is 'lookup a DNS record and print it like bind9-host does' then bind9-host and unbound-host fit that description. and 'reimplementation' probably isn't the right word to use in the package description. -- Robert Edmonds [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
