On 07/09/2012 00:34, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
> It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
>
On 7/9/12 12:44 AM, Dan Lukes wrote:
> On 07/08/12 23:55, Doug Barton:
>> On 07/08/2012 07:41, Dan Lukes wrote:
> ...
>> Sorry, you're not understanding what is being proposed. Specifically
>> you're confusing the system stub resolver (the bit that's compiled into
>> libc, and used by binaries) a
Avleen Vig writes:
> 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.
We should definitely have an implementation of host(1), but dig(1)
Avleen Vig writes:
> As bind-tools and BIND (the resolver) as separate, why not just leave
> bind-tools in base? They'll work happily with unbound.
The bind-tools (host, dig, nslookup) are command-line frontends for the
resolver.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that they are separate from
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
> Other than the functionality, when we replace something, it is also
> important to do some benchmarks and assure that the performance is not
> reasonably worse. Some time back I committed the error of not
> carefully pass this requirement with BSD grep but so far it seems
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Unbound has different policies and release schedules that are more in
> line with ours. So in the short term (as in, the next few years) we're
> better off with unbound in the base.
Where is there information about this / what is their support
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2012 16:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > < 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 ass
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/08/2012 10:10, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So once
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
>> It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
>
> Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. Keeping any of the code
> doesn't solve the problem of the release cycles not syncing up. And for
> the va
< said:
> I could care less about the resolver daemon itself, I agree with what
> you're saying and I don't think most end users will care about that.
> But getting rid of dig and host in base would be bad.
I don't think it's as bad as you suggest, although I do think they we
would likely get a f
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
>>>
>>> Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. K
On Monday 09 July 2012 09:34:34 Avleen Vig wrote:
> The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
> `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
> people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally
> standard tools for doing DNS lookups. Takin
On 9 Jul 2012, at 08:34, Avleen Vig wrote:
>
> Agreed. The idea of a "minimally functional system" itself might be
> flawed. Do you consider having `dig` and `host` essential in a
> minimally functioning system? I do.
> It's pretty f'king hard to resolve problems with installing the
> bind-utils
On Friday, July 06, 2012 4:45:55 pm Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Ian Lepore
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:46 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Arnaud Lacombe
wrote:
> >> > That's neither correct nor robust
On Monday, July 09, 2012 12:39:03 am Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a d
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Avleen Vig wrote:
> [snip]
>
The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
> `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
> people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally
> standard tools for doing DNS lo
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:42:43AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Avleen Vig wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
> > `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
> > people who don't *kno
Thanks Kim.
That's very helpful.
One more question, to get teh RAM of the system, is the way r190599
reliable? Could we trust env variable to get memory reading from bios?
If I would like to calculate the RAM from
totalmem = physmem << 12 + reserve_memory+ msgbuff_size
How can I get size
Ran into some symbol errors with the dtraceall module when using the
*old* nfs client.
I think that this is more or less the right thing to do, but I'm not
sure.
--- //depot/yahoo/ybsd_9/src/sys/modules/dtrace/dtraceall/dtraceall.c
2011-11-02 23:46:55.0
+++ /home/seanbru/dtrace_9/src
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 02:21:46 -0700 , Doug Barton wrote:
> 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.
About that: as I said elsewhere in one of these threads (I want my
bikeshed clear and chartreuse at the
On 2012-Jul-09 14:15:13 +0200, in freebsd-security, "Andrej (Andy) Brodnik"
wrote:
>Excuse my ignorance - but is there a how-to paper on transition from
>bind to unbound for SOHO?
In particular, if unbound has no authoritative server capabilities, what
suggestions are there for handling the pri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/2012 13:47, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-Jul-09 14:15:13 +0200, in freebsd-security, "Andrej (Andy)
> Brodnik" wrote:
>> Excuse my ignorance - but is there a how-to paper on transition
>> from bind to unbound for SOHO?
You don't need to t
On 07/09/2012 06:33, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> On Monday 09 July 2012 09:34:34 Avleen Vig wrote:
>> The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and
>> `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for
>> people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a univers
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
> Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
> in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
from ports.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
on 09/07/2012 22:49 Sean Bruno said the following:
> Ran into some symbol errors with the dtraceall module when using the
> *old* nfs client.
>
> I think that this is more or less the right thing to do, but I'm not
> sure.
>
> --- //depot/yahoo/ybsd_9/src/sys/modules/dtrace/dtraceall/dtraceall.c
On 9 Jul 2012, at 22:01, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
>
>> Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
>> in a minimally installed system.
>
> So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
> from ports.
my DNS re
Mark Blackman writes:
> my DNS resolution is broken, so my ports can't download any tarballs.
> In this case, I reach for dig to see which part of the DNS resolution
> chain is failing me.
>
> At the bare minimum, 'dig' should be an alias for 'drill', which I have
> to say isn't working brillia
On 9 Jul 2012, at 22:37, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Mark Blackman writes:
>> my DNS resolution is broken, so my ports can't download any tarballs.
>> In this case, I reach for dig to see which part of the DNS resolution
>> chain is failing me.
>>
>> At the bare minimum, 'dig' should be an a
Mark Blackman writes:
> I never use '-t' with dig. drill *told* me I should use '-t' then
> completely failed to acknowledge I had done so.
>
> Marks-Macbook% drill -t www.google.com
> [...]
> ;; WARNING: The answer packet was truncated; you might want to
> ;; query again with TCP (-t argument), o
On 9 Jul 2012, at 23:01, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Mark Blackman writes:
>> I never use '-t' with dig. drill *told* me I should use '-t' then
>> completely failed to acknowledge I had done so.
>>
>> Marks-Macbook% drill -t www.google.com
>> [...]
>> ;; WARNING: The answer packet was truncated
Mark Blackman writes:
> drill certainly looks like a drop-in replacement for the common case
> as you suggest. But if it's not called 'dig' and I've never heard of
> 'drill', I'm unlikely to reach for 'drill', hence the alias
> suggestion. I *had* never heard of 'drill' until this thread came up.
On 07/09/12 17:01, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/09/2012 06:45, Mark Blackman wrote:
Indeed, 'dig' and 'host' must be present and working as expected
in a minimally installed system.
So if you don't like the versions that get imported, install bind-tools
from ports.
Doug
Doug, you are one of th
Firstly, I should note that I'm not against removing bind from base.
I'm merely saying that users are going to need some guidance during
the transition.
On 2012-Jul-09 13:52:15 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>On 07/09/2012 13:47, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2012-Jul-09 14:15:13 +0200, in freebsd-securit
On 2012-Jul-10 00:40:07 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>They are sufficiently similar that writing a wrapper that supports a
>significant subset of dig's command-line option and uses drill as a
>backend shouldn't take more than an afternoon for a reasonably
>experienced programmer.
I would fur
On Jul 9, 2012 7:57 PM, "Peter Jeremy" wrote:
>
> On 2012-Jul-10 00:40:07 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> >They are sufficiently similar that writing a wrapper that supports a
> >significant subset of dig's command-line option and uses drill as a
> >backend shouldn't take more than an afterno
On Monday 09 July 2012 22:53:14 Doug Barton wrote:
>
> We get it, change is hard.
No, that isn't what I said at all. I was pointing out that there's some
inconsistency between arguing that we need to make things more predictable
for new users, while simultaneously arguing that we should remove t
36 matches
Mail list logo
