Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:14:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050318120716.87456F-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <4239D7AD.7050004@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050318120716.87456F-100000>