From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 18:36:59 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B12C106564A for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:36:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65F88FC0A for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26544 invoked by uid 399); 10 Sep 2010 18:36:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 10 Sep 2010 18:36:57 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4C8A7ACB.9070408@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:36:59 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David DEMELIER References: <4C8A5CA0.1050700@feral.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: DHCP server in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:36:59 -0000 On 9/10/2010 9:54 AM, David DEMELIER wrote: > 2010/9/10 Matthew Jacob: >> I think not. You are given the opportunity to install prebuilt packages at >> install time, and with a modest amount of effort can install prebuilt >> packages afterwards. >> >> IMO, such as it is, there should be *less* in the base system than there >> currently is and more in ports. I agree with Matt on this one, although that shouldn't be a surprise since I'm on record saying it often. :) > In this case there are some parts in base/ that could live in ports/ > instead of the base directory such as hostapd(8), maybe nobody want to > make a usable wireless access point? Unfortunately arguing to include something new in the base because something else that you don't agree with is already there is not a valid method. The bar is a lot higher for adding things than keeping things (for better or worse). > And what about bind too? As I've said many times, I'm ready to have it out when there is consensus to do so. The usual discussion goes like this: 1. Get BIND out of the base! 2. If we remove it, the command line tools (dig, host, nslookup) go with it. 3. Oh, well, we like those, so keep them, but get rid of the rest! 4. BIND is library based, so 90% of the work to make the command line tools is building the libs, after which building the server and its accessories is trivial work. 5. Oh, well, then make knobs to disable the server! 6. That's already done. 7. Oh, well, never mind then *mumble mumble* However, all that is likely to change at some point in the future (as in, years from now) when BIND 10 becomes the only and/or most viable option since it requires a lot of stuff that we are unlikely to ever import into the base (like boost, python, etc.). So there is hope for you anti-BIND folks yet! :) 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/