Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:15:35 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Cc: Philip Paeps <philip@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? Message-ID: <200503210815.35493.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050319225507.GH60989@fasolt.home.paeps.cx> References: <4239D7AD.7050004@freebsd.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050318120716.87456F-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20050319225507.GH60989@fasolt.home.paeps.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 19 March 2005 05:55 pm, Philip Paeps wrote: > On 2005-03-18 12:14:03 (+0000), Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Doug Barton wrote: > > > Scott Long wrote: > > > > John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > If we are going to do this, then why not just have users install > > > > > bind from ports and only install the client as part of the base > > > > > system? This is what we do with DHCP for example. Basically, if > > > > > it's going to be an optional component, I think it belongs in > > > > > ports, not the /usr/src. > > > > > > > > I agree here, though maybe the argument is moot now that Doug > > > > imported 9.3.1 last night? Not changing the status quo is ok too. > > > > > > Scott, did you see my response to John's post? I don't consider any of > > > this a done deal, but I had to get 9.3.1 in the tree asap in order to > > > try and make an MFC before 5.4 goes out. If we collectively decide to > > > strip named and friends out of the base, we can still do that. I know > > > how to remove files from the vendor branch now. :) > > > > Personally, I'm something of a fan of keeping the complete BIND in the > > base tree as is -- built by default, but not started at boot by default. > > It's well-maintained, historically "BSD", and probably widely used as > > such. > > I agree with this. I wasn't very fond of BIND 8, but I've changed my mind > after BIND 9 :-) It's a bit like sendmail -- very 'historically' BSD, and > just something one expects to 'be there' in a complete way. Like sendmail, > it's also very well maintained, which is an argument in favour of keeping > it the way it is. I agree in that I think BIND is good to have in the tree. I think it should just default to install everything. Folks who don't want certain things can always prune them out later. Having the server installed can be useful for being able to run a local caching nameserver at conferences when the hotel DNS is horrible (Boston ATC last year) even if you don't run it all the time. :) Also, the release process will be a lot simpler if it just installs everything by default. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503210815.35493.jhb>