Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:08:08 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? Message-ID: <42399D58.3040000@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200503161749.24588.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <42380A1D.1010005@freebsd.org> <200503161749.24588.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2005 05:27 am, Doug Barton wrote: > >>Folks, >> >>Way back at the bsdcon in Foster City when we first started talking about >>importing BIND 9 into the base we also talked about adding more knobs to >>give users finer grained control over which bits of BIND were built, and >>turning off the build of named (and associated binaries) by default. Well, >>the first bit is done, so we're now in the position of being able to flip >>the NO_BIND_NAMED knob (see make.conf(5) for details) to WITH_BIND_NAMED, >>and turn it off by default. Is this something that we're still interested >>in doing? If so, this would be a good time to do it, since I'll be >>importing 9.3.1 sometime in the next couple days (first round of make world >>testing is underway), and we're still early in the life of 6-current. >> >>Of course, this would only be for 6-current, we wouldn't change the >>behavior in RELENG_[45]. >> >>What do you think? > > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42399D58.3040000>