* Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com> said:
> Fedora made the decision to promote systemd-resolved as a local DNS
> cache. To me, that means that we can gradually remove other DNS caches
> from the distribution.
Since when does Fedora choosing a default mean other options must be
removed from the distribution?
What I meant: If Fedora chooses a default, it is reasonable to expect
that less effort is spent on alternatives, especially if the maintainers
for those alternatives desire to do so.
In theory, users could have been presented with a choice of different
caching options during installation, including Unbound, dnsmasq and
nscd, but that is not what was implemented, despite some concerns
regarding the readiness of systemd-resolved. To me, this suggests that
the Fedora project does not think that having those alternatives an
option brings substantial value. I think it's only fair if package
maintainers prioritize accordingly.
Unbound and dnsmasq clearly have alternative usage scenarios beyond a
caching DNS stub resolver, but we just don't see such alternative usage
scenarios for nscd.
Thanks,
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH,
https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill