Deadwood 2.9.01 released: Recursion is ready for beta testing

[Sam Trenholme]

Well, one thing really nice about Deadwood is that it’s a lot easier
to set up things so it compiles in Windows than MaraDNS.  It’s a
simple as:

* Download a program that can decode .7z archives, such as 7-zip
(http://7-zip.org ; free software) or WinRAR.

* Download deadwood-tcc-2.9.01.7z

* Unpack deadwood-tcc-2.9.01.7z using 7-zip or whatever

* Open up a command prompt (this has the name “cmd”) in Windows with
start→run→“cmd” or the similar equivalent in Vista/Windows 7

* Enter the deadwood-tcc-2.9.01 directory

* Type in “tcc-compile.bat”

* A couple of seconds later you will be in the “src” directory with a
freshly compiled Deadwood 2.9.01.

OK, that takes a few steps, but it’s a lot less involved than hunting
down for MinGW and MSYS (they’re at http://samiam.org/software/ for
example, but I don’t broadcast this fact because I’m technically in
violation of the GPL by distributing MinGW 3.1.0-1 without its source
code)

- Sam

2010/7/22 jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com>:
> Great! Thank you!
> I hope I can work on it all this coming month of august.
> Best.
> jfc
>
> At 21:11 22/07/2010, Sam Trenholme wrote:
>>
>> I have just released Deadwood 2.9.01.  This is the first release of
>> Deadwood with full recursion; in other words, in addition to getting
>> information from upstream_servers, Deadwood can now use root_servers
>> (if neither upstream_servers nor root_servers are set, Deadwood
>> defaults to the ICANN IPv4 root servers).
>>
>> The release is available here, both as source code and as Windows
>> binaries:
>>
>> http://maradns.org/deadwood/testing/
>>
>> This releases fixes a lot of issues people have reported here on the
>> list and elsewhere: Deadwood has full IPv6 support.  This release
>> handles CNAMEs correctly and doesn't have the issues MaraDNS 1.x has
>> with AAAA records that point to CNAMEs.  There is a good chance that a
>> domain that doesn't resolve with MaraDNS 1.x will resolve with
>> Deadwood.
>>
>> More importantly, I'm willing to listen to bug reports about names not
>> resolving again.  If a given name doesn't resolve in Deadwood 2.9, but
>> resolves using another DNS server, I want to know about it.  I now can
>> give people something better than "read
>> http://maradns.org/faq.html#resolve and no I won't fix it" when people
>> report bugs with MaraDNS' recursive resolver.  For example, when Ms.
>> Maxine Ritter reported a bug with recursive ANY queries, I told her I
>> wouldn't fix that.  Well, that's changed and I have fixed her issue;
>> Deadwood 2.9 correctly handles ANY queries.
>>
>> It has been a long road to get here. I have wanted to rewrite MaraDNS'
>> recursive resolver since 2002; I started writing Deadwood in 2007 and
>> it's finally feature-complete.
>>
>> I encourage people to test Deadwood 2.9.01 and report any bugs they
>> find.  Please keep the following in mind:
>>
>>    * Valgrind-reported memory leaks can always be reported.
>> Valgrind-reported errors are only valid if Deadwood is compiled with
>> -DVALGRIND_NOERRORS
>>
>>    * The only officially supported OSes are Windows XP and CentOS 5.
>> OS-specific issues such as startup, daemonizing, sysloggin, and
>> /etc/resolv.conf setup are only supported on these two OSes.
>>
>>    * Bugs need to be reported to the MaraDNS list, not to my email
>> account nor as blog comments. I hope to have time to set up a web
>> forum for MaraDNS/Deadwood support for people not comfortable with
>> mailing lists, but no promises.
>>
>> - Sam
>>
>> Note: I do not answer MaraDNS (including Deadwood) support requests
>> sent by private email without being compensated for my time. A MaraDNS
>> support request is any and all discussion you may wish to have about
>> MaraDNS in private email; if you want to email me to talk about
>> MaraDNS then, yes, that is a support request. I will discuss rates if
>> you want this kind of support. Thank you for your understanding.
>>
>> MaraDNS security vulnerability reports, however, will be dealt with
>> without charge and kept confidential. If you don't know what Bugtraq
>> is, then, no, your email is not a security report. It is not a
>> security report unless you've done due diligence to determine how the
>> security bug you think you found can reasonably be exploited.
>
>