unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

 "Rodney W. Grimes" writes:

 > Um, yea, I guess the bigger question is why is the port different
 > than the base system in this respect?

The the unbound port existed years before it was decided that unbound
should replace bind in the base system.

If you want the port to change, send a PR for the port so I won't forget this.

 >
 > I would expect unbound to be the same, as unbound_local in almost
 > every respect, especially with respect to its startup sequencing,
 > providers and requires.

Not really. For a start, the port has a different default configuration
then the one in base.

 >
 > > > I seen no problem in adding a BEFORE: NETWORKING to the port, covering
 > > > a larger number of casses than your narrow BEFORE: dhcpd.

I don't see a problem either.
 
 > > >> On a related note, unbound rc script provides "unbound" service.
 > > >> I think that maybe it should provide something more generic such as "nameserver"
 > > >> or "dns-server" (not sure if there is an established name for that).
 > > >> The reason I am saying this is that, IMO, if unbound is replaced with some other
 > > >> name server implementation the rc dependency chains should stay the same.
 > > > 
 > > > I do not see anything in the base system that uses unbound or local_unbound
 > > > service name, so this looks like it could be straightforward, though there
 > > > may be some ports that have use of this token.
 > > > 
 > > > For the blue bikeshed I find that "server" is just noise in the token
 > > > and that "dns" already has "s" for system, so just "dns" is good with me :-)
 > > 
 > > That's a good point.

I don't agree. The term dns is too generic. People are often running
dfferent nameservers on the same machine, as example: authoritative
and nonauthoritative (e.g. nsd & unbound).

Regards,

	jaap