Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:07:20 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Sergey Vinogradov <boogie@lazybytes.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: BIND in the base (Was: Re: tmux(1) in base) Message-ID: <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> The things in the base system I always wondered about are sendmail
> and bind9. These are pretty heavy, and definitely are not used in every
> single installation. Maybe someday I'll see sendmail and bind9 in ports
> instead of base system. And yes, I know about WITHOUT_BIND= and
> WITHOUT_SENDMAIL= :)
For about the millionth time ... :)
I would be perfectly happy to remove BIND, however most people want
some or all of dig, host, or nslookup in the base, which means that
about 60% or more of the BIND source code has to be there to allow
that. From there it's a pretty simple leap to "let's build it all then
because that's how we've always done it."
The next-best thing would be to flip the knobs so that we're not
building named and friends by default which I'm happy to do if people
want it done, but no one ever comes up with a clear consensus to do it.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AB90448.9020706>