From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 16 04:24:43 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F00F086A for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE5D0E83 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBG4OvVH073434; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:24:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, In-Reply-To: <20141215.082038.41648681.sthaug@nethelp.no> References: <20131203.223612.74719903.sthaug@nethelp.no>, <20141215.082038.41648681.sthaug@nethelp.no> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: BIND chroot environment in 10-RELEASE...gone? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:24:58 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:24:44 -0000 On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:20:38 +0100 (CET) sthaug@nethelp.no wrote > > > > It was a deliberate decision made by the maintainer. He said the chroot > > > > code in the installation was too complicated and would be removed as a > > > > part of the installation clean-up to get all BIND related files out of > > > > /usr and /etc. I protested at the time as did someone else, but the > > > > maintainer did not respond. I thnk this was a really, really bad > > > > decision. > > > > > > > > I searched a bit for the thread on removing BIND leftovers, but have > > > > failed to find it. > > > > > > > > > > You're probably thinking about my November 17 posting: > > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-November/075895.html > > > > > > I'm glad to see others finally speaking up; I was beginning to think I > > > was the only one who thought this was not a good idea. I'm a bit > > > surprised that no one has responded yet. > > > > I agree with the protesters here. Removing chroot and symlinking logic > > in the ports is a significant disservice to FreeBSD users, and will > > make it harder to use BIND in a sensible way. A net disincentive to > > use FreeBSD :-( > > I have now installed my first 10.1 based name server. I had to spend > some hours to recreate the changeroot environment that I had so easily > available in FreeBSD up to 9.x. > > > Removing the changeroot environment and symlinking logic is a net > disservice to the FreeBSD community, and disincentive to use FreeBSD. > In all fairness (is there even such a thing?); "Convenience" is a two-way street. For each person that thinks the BIND chroot(8) mtree(8) symlink(2) was a great "service". There are at *least* as many whom feel differently. I chose to remove/disable the BIND, from BASE, some time ago. As it wasn't "convenient" to have to overcome/deal with the CVE/security issues. In the end, I was forced to re-examine some of the other resolvers, that ultimately, only proved to be better choice(s). Just sayin' --Chris > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"