From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 29 09:18:36 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B534559 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bs1.fjl.org.uk (bs1.fjl.org.uk [84.45.41.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bs1.fjl.org.uk", Issuer "bs1.fjl.org.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA3612CE for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:18:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.96] (host31-51-114-41.range31-51.btcentralplus.com [31.51.114.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by bs1.fjl.org.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3T9I4NR097128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:18:08 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from frank2@fjl.co.uk) Message-ID: <5540A1CA.3090009@fjl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:18:02 +0100 From: Frank Leonhardt Reply-To: frank2@fjl.co.uk Organization: Frank Leonhardt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dig command ? References: <552001C0.6040304@gmail.com> <553EA687.2040602@fjl.co.uk> <553F6219.40701@qeng-ho.org> <553F6757.50801@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <553F6757.50801@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:18:36 -0000 On 28/04/2015 11:56, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/28/15 11:34, Arthur Chance wrote: >> It didn't. What we've got now is a clone of host supplied by the unbound >> software. >> >> No, I've no idea why they didn't clone nslookup and dig as well. :-( > Because cloning host(1) is easy. Cloning nslookup(1) -- replicating its > peculiar behaviour with the reasonably sane tools bundled with > unbound(8) -- is hard, and not worth it for a program that is in any > case deprecated. > Actually, nslookup is NOT deprecated. It was deprecated by ISC for a period in 2004(!) but was un-deprecated again in the BIND 9.3 documentation. ISC woke up and realised it was important ten years ago. As for peculiar behaviour, all UNIX utilities have peculiar behaviour. We've had 30 years to get used to what nslookup can and can't do; removing it from the base system after 30 years and breaking scripts all over the place is a lot worse than being peculiar. And suppose you want do debug a resolver issue? dig (and host?) are going to give exactly the same results as the local resolver would because they simply call it - nslookup won't. Okay, if you're working on resolvers you'll probably install the bind-tools port anyway, but that's not the point. The "find" command can be pretty odd - should that be removed in favour of something that's theoretically more predictable? Or how about dd, which is so old its arguments use a syntax that's incompatible with everything else since? BIND (including dig, host and nslookup) was provided as contributed software to the base system. I don't see any reason to "clone" it (perhaps there is; I just don't see one), so the difficulty or or otherwise of creating a work-alike shouldn't matter, should it?