* Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
