On 2015-09-26, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
>> As Unbound/nsd are in base now, perhaps it could be easier to get
>> drill in and drop dig ?
>
> That's a great idea. We'd need to add nslookup(1) and host(1)
> wrappers though.
Vitaly Magerya wrote a ldns-based host(1):
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:03:50 +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
> As Unbound/nsd are in base now, perhaps it could be easier to get
> drill in and drop dig ?
That's a great idea. We'd need to add nslookup(1) and host(1)
wrappers though.
- todd
> dig and nslookup will remain in base. Go look in our tree at the contortions
> required to keep them there, since ISC has created a mess of their own
> libraries
> and makes the 800 lines of nslookup and 7000 lines of dig use them. Hold your
> nose when you look, ok?
>
As Unbound/nsd are in
On 2015-09-25 15:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Is there any chance that dig (src/usr.sbin/bind/bin/dig/) could be
build
with -DDIG_SIGCHASE to enable dnssec verification in future releases?
Where would be a proper place to request that?
I've just added this to the ports version of BIND
>By any chance, once the base version of bind is being phased out, do you
>know if there will still be a dig(1) in the base?
dig and nslookup will remain in base. Go look in our tree at the contortions
required to keep them there, since ISC has created a mess of their own libraries
and makes
On 2015-09-24, Etienne wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> Is there any chance that dig (src/usr.sbin/bind/bin/dig/) could be build
> with -DDIG_SIGCHASE to enable dnssec verification in future releases?
> Where would be a proper place to request that?
>
> Cheers,
>
I've
6 matches
Mail list logo