From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E27BF158013 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AC07E088A; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dsona.a21an.org (dsona.a21an.org [139.162.188.118]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8757E0821 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rog.a21an.org (p200300f1c71d6b122493ecd029523d0e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:f1:c71d:6b12:2493:ecd0:2952:3d0e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dsona.a21an.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Xbr6x2tgmz2CKy for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:59:12 +0100 From: Eray Aslan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Why does bind-tools 9.18 depend on bind? Message-ID: References: <2761060.mvXUDI8C0e@cube> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2761060.mvXUDI8C0e@cube> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.13 (2024-03-09) X-Archives-Salt: e4c24235-0f9a-4ceb-994d-3d6facc30e4e X-Archives-Hash: 13baec4e189eb44995a605ab42c36228 On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 11:42:32AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Saturday 26 October 2024 09:10:44 BST Eray Aslan wrote: > > fwiw, net-dns/unbound is a good choice for a resolver even if you are > > running in a systemd environment. > > Interesting. I run dnsmasq here; would unbound be better, or less good? I've > had no trouble with dnsmasq - it just does the job. I should have qualified that statement. Sorry. dnsmasq is optimized and arguably a better choice for client systems, esp with intermittent internet access (phones, laptops etc). And I find unbound to be a better choice for server environments. Since I am familiar with unbound, I tend to use it everywhere but that is just personal choice. -- Eray