[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] BIND10? No, thanks.

[Mike Cloaked]

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev at umail.iu.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:27:42 +1100
> Gaetan Bisson <bisson at archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Currently we use the BIND code base in two packages:
> > - dnsutils from [core] provides basic DNS query tools;
> > - bind from [extra] is the actual name server.
> >
> > With the new BIND10 release, the ISC really outdid themselves: all
> > formerly standalone tools have been merged and rewritten as a python
> > script which uses bindings to the new libb10-* series of libraries that
> > are shared with the name server. Python being such a boring dependency,
> > they introduced another three: botan, log4cplus, and boost!
> >
> > That mostly means two things:
> > - We cannot keep splitting dnsutils and bind anymore.
> > - I do not want to maintain these packages any further.
> >
> > We already have ldns in [core], a much better written (and sane) DNS
> > library which includes query tools that are near drop-in replacements
> > for BIND's: use `drill` instead of `dig`, etc.
> >
> > So I suggest:
> > - Any package relying on dnsutils and its tools (dig, host, nslookup) be
> >   ported to use ldns instead - should be straightforward in most cases.
> > - We ditch dnsutils and bind out of our repos, unless somebody finds
> >   them fun and wants to maintain them in [extra] or [community].
> >
> > Comments or suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
>
> Great. I was actually going to open a feature request for this on flyspray.
> The only thing: whouldn't one need community/unbound (unbound-host AFAIR)
> to
> replace nslookup?


Do I interpret this as meaning that if dnstools and bind are removed from
the arch repos, then ldns carries the tools as a replacement, but that
"unbound" is a dependent package that would then be the authoritative
resolver that replaces bind?  Or would it be that ldns would contain not
only the dns tools (such as the replacement for dig etc), but also the full
authoritative resolver merged into the code?

Maybe I just don't understand the proposal here. Perhaps someone could
clarify what the proposal means?

Thanks

-- 
mike c