Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 03:01:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:09 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote: > > > FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please > > see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.html > > I might be able to buy your arguments for supporting BIND 8 > instead of BIND 9 in -STABLE, but not in -CURRENT. Regardless of whether I agree with the points you make here or not, the FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone eliminates the possibility of importing BIND 9 at this time. > There's no sense re-hashing all these issues in e-mail .... and yet you felt the need to do so. > Also note that if you're going to flame someone for development > on BIND 9, Nothing I've had to say on this issue should be (or I think reasonably can be) interpreted as a flame. I've simply stated the reasons I think that BIND 9 isn't suitable for one particular purpose. > Anyway, the argument for having separate -STABLE and -CURRENT > branches is so that development on new code can progress, and > adventurous types can give the new stuff a try (and help debug it), > while less adventurous types can stick with tried-n-true. Correct, however historically the project has chosen what it wants to be "adventurous" about. Using the "tried and true" versions of things in src/contrib gives us more flexibility to be "adventurous" in the parts of the tree that are generated by the project. However, those who really want to embark on the adventure of testing bind 9 in production can do so using the port. Using the combination of NO_BIND in /etc/make.conf and PORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 in ports/net/bind9, you can even have exactly what you're asking for. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606024813.Y5414>