Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:31:58 -0400 From: Louis Mamakos <louie@transsys.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Sergey Vinogradov <boogie@lazybytes.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BIND in the base (Was: Re: tmux(1) in base) Message-ID: <8A3D6B19-8AD6-4222-8C26-4DF87D0709C6@transsys.com> In-Reply-To: <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > I would be perfectly happy to remove BIND, however most people want > some or all of dig, host, or nslookup in the base, which means that > about 60% or more of the BIND source code has to be there to allow > that. From there it's a pretty simple leap to "let's build it all then > because that's how we've always done it." > > The next-best thing would be to flip the knobs so that we're not > building named and friends by default which I'm happy to do if people > want it done, but no one ever comes up with a clear consensus to do > it. Ideally, FreeBSD out-of-the-box ought to have a caching DNS server as part of the base system. I don't understand myself why people don't run caching name servers on every Internet-connected host, and want to rely on some other external entity. Heck, I run 'em on my nanobad based systems on Soekris boxes; the footprint really isn't that large. BIND serves this purpose adequately, though I'm sure that there are endless other possibilities better/faster/smaller/cheaper/prettier.. louie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8A3D6B19-8AD6-4222-8C26-4DF87D0709C6>