Zitat von Paul Wouters <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, [email protected] wrote:
May i ask if it is really needed to exclude ldns from tarball? It
was really handy to not download yet-another-tarball have a look at
the checksums and move it to the right destination, than do
configure/make for the libs and start over with unbound again. How
many people actually need it to be excluded?
see many discussions here in the last. The debian and fedora maintainers
both asks for it to be decoupled, as the tar ball copy inside unbound is
confusing and can sometimes accidentally get linked by unbound if the
ldns dev/devel package is not installed. Staticly linked libraries on
systems are not good. If you think you have ldns 1.6.10 but unbound had
been statically linked to 1.6.9, you might have a security issue.....
I thought that one have to explicit set --with-ldns-builtin to get
this behavior??
Also, not every unbound requires a new ldns.
But it is no error to use latest unbound with latest ldns, no?
And of course, people use ldns and ldns-python without unbound.
For sure, but many people use unbound without anything other using
ldns so an option to simply built unbound with static linked ldns
would be nice to have. A normal update from source with unbound was
far below an hour, with 1.4.12 i#m struggling since two days :-(
Regards
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Unbound-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
