Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:27:24 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DHCP server in base Message-ID: <4C91100C.5060502@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100915.082513.802140508206832836.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20100910234830.87641e07.ray@ddteam.net> <4C8ACE52.8060000@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTinkJ182=GFTdWW_0OAT6rfoRJPBxnzMyukCeYnR@mail.gmail.com> <20100915.082513.802140508206832836.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/15/2010 7:25 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Yea. I agree too. Just because BIND was EOLd in 6 isn't a great > argument against dhcp server. That rather clearly was not the only element of my argument, and not only is it disingenuous for you to indicate that it was, I don't appreciate you doing so. > Most of the code is there anyway, and it isn't evolving as fast as BIND. That is actually a more rational argument, even if I don't agree with it. FWIW, part of the reason that I don't agree with it is that at some point, hopefully in the near future, we will want to include the DHCPv6 client in the mix somewhere; and when we do the code base is not going to be as stable as we have enjoyed so far with the v4 dhclient. > It would be very convenient to have this particular thing in the base, > and we shouldn't be too dogmatic about never having any new 3rd party > things in the base. After all, we just added more compression > utilities to the base, and nobody said a peep. I actually thought that change was rather silly, but it was clear that there was so much critical mass in favor of it that there was no point in stating a dissenting opinion. As part of the project's leadership you should be careful not to mistake silence for agreement, or worse, support. > This is analogous: we > have good opportunity to integrate into the system, and users benefit > from that integration. Given your perspective of wanting more of a complete system in the base I can certainly see how you would be supportive of this change. My intent was to make the argument in a general way that this is the wrong direction to go, and that users would benefit *more* from a robust modularized system. The fact that the v4 DHCPd might accidentally be a good candidate for including in the base today doesn't mean that doing so is the right strategy for the long term. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C91100C.5060502>