Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:44:49 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden <seanc@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030607064449.GW65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> In-Reply-To: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > but why have a nameserver in the default installation? All we > > need is the client resolver libraries and basic CLI programs. > > Using DHCP or HTTP as examples: we don't need dhcpd in the base, > > just dhclient, and with HTTP, we don't need apache in our base, > > but we do have/need fetch. > > As I've said, I have a great deal of sympathy with this > position. But before we could consider it, we'd have to give it > thorough testing. I'm particularly nervous about the libraries and > headers. Been running NO_BIND=YES for two years on servers and desktops alike with zero problems. Now, I haven't checked to see what NO_BIND really does, but I've had it defined for what feels like eons and had no problems thus far. > Has anyone actually run a system without any BIND bits installed? > Particularly a desktop system, which compiles stuff from ports. *waves hand* I think we could enlist bento here to validate the theory of being able to nuke name server bits and confirm the above position. The only thing that I do worry about is ports like net/openreg that depend on bind headers and such to build. Removing bind from the base installation may turn up a few ports that require bits like these, but they should properly depend on bind9 as a BUILD_DEPENDS anyway, but I digress... > If we can get enough consensus, and most importantly, people to test > it, I'd be very interested in the idea of removing BIND from > 6-Current altogether, with the exception of whatever libs/headers > are deemed essential, and the userland binaries dig and host. Since > I can already hear the whining about not having nslookup, we should > probably include that too, although I'd dearly love to nuke it. :( You had me going for this until I saw you jump to 6-current. Can we first conclude that removing the server bits and leaving the client libs/bins would be a good idea? At that point, then we can determine if it'd be a good when to make such a decision. 6 isn't but a twinkle in folks' eyes at this point so I just assume keep the discussion centered around what's practical. -sc -- Sean Chittenden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607064449.GW65470>