Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:56:50 +0100 From: Ilya Bakulin <webmaster@kibab.com> To: Darren Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound-control in FreeBSD-CURRENT and stable/10 Message-ID: <7507eb85a259cbb96c232625bb883460@mail.bakulin.de> In-Reply-To: <5298EA83.30705@bluerosetech.com> References: <20131129142143.GA29437@olymp.kibab.com> <20131129142729.GA29580@olymp.kibab.com> <5298EA83.30705@bluerosetech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-11-29 20:26, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > On 11/29/2013 6:27 AM, Ilya Bakulin wrote: > > There's really no bug to fix. The base has unbound in it, > unbound-control is part of unbound. If you install unbound from > ports, you should delete unbound from base. I haven't tried out 10.x > yet, but you usually just set a knob like WITHOUT_UNBOUND in > /etc/src.conf, then do: Why on earth I should rebuild the whole system just to get rid of Unbound? Actually Unbound in base should be used only as a DNSSEC-aware resolver for the localhost, not as "real" DNS server. Just like BIND used to be earlier. You haven't recompiled the system (and lost freebsd-update!) when installing BIND from ports, have you? > Change your PATH to have /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin first. > The shell will find /usr/local/bin/unbound-control first and run that. > I recommend this in general, since you pretty much always want a name > collision to prefer the from-ports program. This sounds a lot better, although then I don't understand why the system is not shipped with this setting by default.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7507eb85a259cbb96c232625bb883460>