Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:02:30 -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: <20030606175012.M15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <a06001217bb06a61b22c4@[10.0.1.2]> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]><a06001217bb06a61b22c4@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wow.... you've so completely missed the point that I hesitate to respond
to this, but I suppose I should try.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:01 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm sorry, plenty of things have been done in -CURRENT that could
> not possibly be MFC'ed to -STABLE. Yes, once the leap to the next
> version is done and the particular RELENG tree that used to be
> -CURRENT becomes the new -STABLE, things would migrate down.
>
> Are you saying that the new SMP code could not have been done,
> because it could not be MFC'ed to -STABLE?
You've failed to grasp the distinction I made between "adventursome bits
in contrib" vs. "adventursome bits in the rest of src/." Also, SMPng is a
really good example of my point... it's a major API change IN FREEBSD CODE
that definitely belongs in HEAD, for eventual -stable'ification of that
branch. If we decide to do the same thing with BIND, it should be in the
next major development branch. There is already enough excitement in what
will be RELENG_5.
> > 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.
>
> In which case, I would submit that you should be more involved in
> the development of BIND,
A) My level of involvement in BIND development is none of your business.
B) My level of involvement in BIND development is not even a little bit
related to whether bind 9 is suitable to import into FreeBSD yet. You've
confused the thing we're trying to prove, "Is bind 9 ready for freebsd?"
with a premise in your own absurd logic, "Because bind 9 is the best thing
ever, dougb should fix it so he can put it in freebsd."
> IMO, if you want to claim that BIND 9 isn't suitable for
> production use, then I believe you should be prepared to help change
> that situation.
Thank you for sharing. You're totally wrong, but I appreciate your
feedback.
You've also completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out
that everyone who wants what you're advocating (no bind 8 in the base,
and/or having bind 9 in the base) can have it, right now, no waiting. The
fact that it requires to extra, extremely painless configuration steps is,
arguably, unfortunate, however I don't think it's too much to ask, at
least in the near term.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606175012.M15459>