On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:21:46AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/08/2012 01:03, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > > > On 8. Jul 2012, at 02:44 , Warner Losh wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >>> <<On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:17:53 -0700, Doug Barton <do...@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.... > >> > >> The only reason I want it in the base system is that ports don't cross > >> build very well, but the base system does. That's a weak +1 for keeping > >> something in the base system, but I'll be the first to admit it is a > >> second or third tier argument at best. > > > > The real reason you want exactly these tools in base is that otherwise you > > end up rewriting tiny parts of freebsd-update etc that actually depend on > > host, etc. to query SRV for SRV records. > > That's an implementation issue, and is easily handled with drill, or the > host-like program we all agree is a really-nice-to-have. >
From first impression it seems that drill(1) has a syntax that leaves something to be desired like the eased use of host or dig. Specifically and not trying to make this thread about such but "+trace +short" styles just simply do not exist. I suppose a wrapper could be written to parse thoise syntaxes into there correct meaning dig.sh host.sh but thatd be one hell of a compatability problem rather than just having bind-tools in base. -- - (2^(N-1))
pgpkoYQeceoWg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
