Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:28:06 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <3EE0A4F6.6020201@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20030606133644.GB49662@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]> <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606133644.GB49662@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >>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. > > Sorry to wade in here - let me just ask for clarification on something. Are > you stating as the BIND maintainer around these parts that FreeBSD will > never have BIND 9? That even though BIND 8 is no longer a "current release" > according to the ISC webpage, and they're only carrying it as it is "still > in wide usage" - i.e. everybody should be upgrading to 9 - you don't plan > to drop 9 in as the standard, default resolver? Not just now, but you have > no plans to do so currently at all? It's your use of the word "eventually" > which is pricking my ears up here.. Just to jump in and help out. The "at this time" part of his response says to me that the current "mixed" status of 5 as -CURRENT as well as -RELEASE and the current effort to get 5 -STABLE is what's preventing the import of BIND 9. Once 5 is branched to a 6-CURRENT, I'm sure the possibility will open up to import BIND 9 again. At that time ... >>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. > > ISC claim BIND 9 to be the current release. 9.2.2 was released on March 3rd. > I've been running it on one box here since March 5th. I have no issues. It > is stable. It *will* act as a drop-in replacement for BIND 8 if you wish, > except it's more secure, development is continuing on it, and in my > experience, it performs better. > > I'm sure you have your reasons, I'm just not sure what they are. Can you > spell out the objections? Perhaps off list? I'm just curious... not even > you, anybody here who can explain why 9 is evil and 8 is great... I don't know details. But my experience with the FreeBSD folks is that they don't jump on a new version just because the vendor says, "everyone should move to this new version." Apache, as a related example, is pushing hard to have everyone on 2.x. But if Apache were a part of the base FreeBSD and it moved to 2.x, it would have major stability problems with things like PHP (who is recommending that people do NOT use Apache 2 with PHP) So, as I see it, the FreeBSD developers carefully evaluate claims of "newer, better" and make decisions based on internal testing and experience - not marketing hype. Of course, the BIND folks don't want to continue to maintain BIND 8, so it's only natural for them to push BIND 9. >>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. > > But why make users jump through hoops to run the most secure, stable and > supported version of BIND? Sorry, just don't get it... Because, in the conservative opinion of the FreeBSD developers, it's not that proven yet. Also, the current development status of the source tree makes it a PITA to do at this time. Personally, I don't consider installing a port "jumping through hoops", but that's just me. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EE0A4F6.6020201>