> I was waiting to be sure about this before adding an extra log socket in
> the jail.
>
> Unbound opens /dev/log pre-chroot, so under normal conditions this is
> not necessary, *however* if syslogd is restarted, the old socket is
> no longer valid, so Unbound stops logging.
>
> So I think yes we
moved from misc to tech
On 2014/03/23 18:09, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> > You can uninstall the package if you don't need it, or you can keep it
> > if you do need it (for example, for drill or the ldns-* tools).
>
> How about this line add
Any more feedback on this? We need more testing to proceed!
jakob
2012/3/14 Jakob Schlyter mailto:ja...@kirei.se)>:
> Could you provide an update complete tarfil for review by other developers?
I think we should start considering importing this.
Latest iteration:
http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-wip.9.tar.gz
Current status includes work on suggesti
> The latest iteration includes:
>
> - Removal of ldns-includes, -library and -manpages;
> - Static link of ldns;
> - No shared libraries.
There was a nasty config-error in Makefile.bsd-wrapper which has been fixed in:
http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-wip.8.tar.gz
This iteration als
On 2012 Feb 23 (Thu) at 09:37:57 +0100 (+0100), Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
:> - Could you try to link ldns static and not install neither the ldns
:library, include files nor the man-pages?
:
:The latest iteration includes:
:
:- Removal of ldns-includes, -library and -manpages;
:- Static link of ldns;
> - Could you try to link ldns static and not install neither the ldns
library, include files nor the man-pages?
The latest iteration includes:
- Removal of ldns-includes, -library and -manpages;
- Static link of ldns;
- No shared libraries.
Tarball:
http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-
Hi Bjvrn,
First - thanks a lot for doing this; it has been on my todo-list for ages and
I really appreciate this getting done.
- Have you considered getting rid of all the ldns cruft that we would not use
anyway?
- Could you try to link ldns static and not install neither the ldns library,
inclu
Latest iteration of trying to get unbound to fit in OpenBSD base can be
found here:
http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-wip.5.tar.gz
Quite a few things have changed:
- better integration of ldns in unbound by writing a better
Makefile.bsd-wrapper (thanks to Ralf -at- ackstorm -dot- de);
* Bjvrn Ketelaars [2012-02-17 14:00]:
> Updated set of files and diffs are here:
>
> http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-wip.2.tar.gz
Tested on OpenBSD 5.0/vax in simh simulator. Works fine.
There was one issue during "make install":
install -c -s -o root -g bin -m 555 drill/.libs/dri
use the stub syntax in unbound.
Penned by Jan Klemkow on 20120217 6:18.33, we have:
| I was working on replacing bind with unbound and nsd a half year ago.
| I run into this problem. I think in local networks you get such setups
| where you have to serve clients with global request like google.de
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:01:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Jan Klemkow [2012-02-17 10:45]:
> > > There is an other problem with replacing bind with unbound and nsd.
> > > If you have a setup where you need to do authoritative and recursive
> > > resolving of domains with the same sock
Penned by Jan Klemkow on 20120217 3:38.24, we have:
| There is an other problem with replacing bind with unbound and nsd.
| If you have a setup where you need to do authoritative and recursive
| resolving of domains with the same socket and you have to synchronise
| with an extern dns server over
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Jan Klemkow wrote:
| I was working on replacing bind with unbound and nsd a half year ago.
| I run into this problem. I think in local networks you get such setups
| where you have to serve clients with global request like google.de and
| local requests lik
I was working on replacing bind with unbound and nsd a half year ago.
I run into this problem. I think in local networks you get such setups
where you have to serve clients with global request like google.de and
local requests like mail.inhouse.company.com.
I just want to hint this problem.
In my
* Jan Klemkow [2012-02-17 10:45]:
> There is an other problem with replacing bind with unbound and nsd.
> If you have a setup where you need to do authoritative and recursive
> resolving of domains with the same socket and you have to synchronise
> with an extern dns server over zone transfers.
I
On 2012/02/17 10:38, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> I think we need modern bind in ports if we do the replacement. So that
> the admins out there could easily use OpenBSD as a DNS-Server with such
> extra features.
Yes of course. It's also needed for people doing split-horizon with
views, and various other
There is an other problem with replacing bind with unbound and nsd.
If you have a setup where you need to do authoritative and recursive
resolving of domains with the same socket and you have to synchronise
with an extern dns server over zone transfers.
This setup is not possible at the moment wit
>> I agree, however I cannot help with these arches as I do not have
>> access to them. Anyone does?
>
> I tested another arch, alpha with -current from 2012-02-12. A couple
> of build scripts needed executable bits to build successfully, like
> install-sh and libtool (hppa had the same issue, of c
* Bjvrn Ketelaars [2012-02-15 06:48]:
> >> 2.) Testing (read: does it compile and work) on AMD64.
> >
> > amd64 is easy, better questions are things like does it build/work on vax
> > (gcc2, no shared libs), does it work on "unusual" arch like hppa, etc.
>
> I agree, however I cannot help with the
On 2012/02/15 09:54, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:48:49 -0500
> Brad Smith wrote:
>
> > On 14/02/12 3:17 PM, roberth wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
> > > Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> > >
> > >> How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:48:49 -0500
Brad Smith wrote:
> On 14/02/12 3:17 PM, roberth wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
> > Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> >
> >> How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
> >> so, where should that be done?
> >
> > Simply don't bother
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:49:37 -0500
Brad Smith wrote:
> On 14/02/12 3:38 PM, Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, roberth
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
> >> Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> >>
> >>> How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys
>> 2.) Testing (read: does it compile and work) on AMD64.
>
> amd64 is easy, better questions are things like does it build/work on vax
> (gcc2, no shared libs), does it work on "unusual" arch like hppa, etc.
I agree, however I cannot help with these arches as I do not have
access to them. Anyone
On 14/02/12 3:38 PM, Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, roberth wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
so, where should that be done?
Simply don't bother?
rndc keys aren't setu
On 14/02/12 3:17 PM, roberth wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
so, where should that be done?
Simply don't bother?
rndc keys aren't setup automagically either.
The daemon will work just fine wit
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, roberth wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
> Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
>
>> How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
>> so, where should that be done?
>
> Simply don't bother?
> rndc keys aren't setup automagically either.
> The dae
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> How and when do we automatically generate unbound-control keys? if
> so, where should that be done?
Simply don't bother?
rndc keys aren't setup automagically either.
The daemon will work just fine without it, let it be up to the admin
w
* Peter van Oord van der Vlies [2012-02-14
09:11]:
> Why replacing bind ?
1) because it's shit (yes yes vixie, the next release won't be written
by drunken grad students and fix all design and implementation issues,
we hear that since bind4 at least)
2) it's a dead end anyway - i have neve
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:23:01PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote:
> 14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov
:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> > Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Why replacing bind ?
> >
> > Because bind is full of security related bugs a
On 2012 Feb 14 (Tue) at 13:23:01 +0400 (+0400), Mo Libden wrote:
:14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov
:
:> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
:> Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
:>
:> > Hello,
:> >
:> > Why replacing bind ?
:>
:> Because bind is full of security related bugs and
14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov :
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Why replacing bind ?
>
> Because bind is full of security related bugs and a bloatware.
Oh come on!
They say about the same thing about sendmail f
2012/2/13 Stuart Henderson :
...
>> After tar/gzip the source files and Makefile wrappers weigh ~4.6MB. A bit
to
>> large to send to this list. if anyone feels like looking at the workb&do
not
>> hesitate to mail me.
>
> Please do. It would be nice to put them on a public server.
>
WIP can be foun
elaars [mailto:bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl]
> Verzonden: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 PM
> Aan: m...@openbsd.org
> ; tech@openbsd.org
> Onderwerp: Unbound in base
>
> Hello,
>
> After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base,
> and (more importan
Hello,
Why replacing bind ?
Kind Regards
Peter
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Bjvrn Ketelaars [mailto:bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl]
Verzonden: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 PM
Aan: m...@openbsd.org
; tech@openbsd.org
Onderwerp: Unbound in base
Hello,
After some recent discussions
On 2012/02/13 22:35, Bjvrn Ketelaars wrote:
> After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base, and
> (more important) really liking the idea of an alternative for BIND in base, I
> made a start with fitting the different pieces of the puzzle. What is
> finished:
&
Hello,
After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base, and
(more important) really liking the idea of an alternative for BIND in base, I
made a start with fitting the different pieces of the puzzle. What is
finished:
1.) Integration of ldns 1.6.12 and unbound 1.4.15 and
37 matches
Mail list logo
