From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 2 18:29:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385D1106564A; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:29:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1D68FC0A; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id o32ITQQg013377; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Kevin Oberman In-Reply-To: <20100402165002.71A8B1CC09@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: References: <20100402165002.71A8B1CC09@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Randy Bush , Doug Barton , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Stanislav Sedov , Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Results of BIND RFC X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:29:32 -0000 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700 >> From: Jeremy Chadwick >> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org >> >> I disagree (so what else is new?) It should be kept out of the base >> system. KISS: >> >> Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excellent. >> >> Doug making a separate port for BIND-esque DNS query/maintenance tools = >> excellent. >> >> Both of the above can be made into packages. Vendors who use FreeBSD >> can incorporate said package(s) into their build infrastructure. Folks >> who do not have Internet connections (yet for some reason want said DNS >> tools) can install the package(s) from CD/DVD/USB. >> >> I want the bikeshed to be black. :-) > > I have very mixed feelings on this. I agree with arguments I have seen > on both sides. I like being able to install FreeBSD and have a well > integrated system with all of the basic tools installed for basic > use. Things play together well. > > I don't use many of the base system tools. I use cups, postfix, > customized ssh, and the ports version of BIND. I don't build the stuff I > don't need (src.conf) and I don't mind them being there. > > On the other hand, for complex, heavy duty ports, keeping up to date > with externally maintains tools (contrib) is a pain and the base system > can get stuck with rather out of date tools as a result. (Remember > perl?) Unless there is very strong support for a contributed tools, it's > hopeless and, if the tool is evolving rapidly, as BIND is with DNSSEC, > it's still hopeless. I really dread having to update my ports. I hate all the bloated dependencies that a lot of ports have. It's sometimes a hit or miss situtation; you never know whether your ports are going to build (update) fully or not. And it takes forever. Our ports team does a fantastic job, so no diss intended. But I am concerned about moving BIND into ports, even if there is a tools-only port. With BIND in base, I don't have to worry about updating or when to update - someone else decides when to update/patch the base BIND and I am happy with that. All I have to do is buildworld, which I do much more often than update ports. If there is already a WITHOUT_BIND knob, then I really don't see what advantage there is in moving BIND out of base. Anyone that wants to use a different resolver can already do that, with the only limitation that they have to buildworld to remove the base bind. -- DE