From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Jul 19 04:07:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA19970 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 04:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pulp.nildram.co.uk (root@pulp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA19965 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by pulp.nildram.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) with UUCP id KAA17041; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:51:53 GMT Received: from i.vaudrey (i.vaudrey [10.0.0.5]) by mail.nemko.ltd.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA07964; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:52:33 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <33D09C07.3F2C4337@test.nemko.ltd.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:50:47 +0100 From: Ian Vaudrey X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Busarow CC: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: upgrading to a safe BIND? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I hate to disagree, but I think bind-8 should be introduced into the 2.2-RELENG branch as soon as possible, at least as an install-time option. The reason? The following, found at http://www.isc.org/bind.html: "In May of 1997, the first production version of BIND-8 was released. We have deprecated BIND-4 other than for security related patches. No new features or portability changes will be added to BIND-4. You should be using BIND-8." That last sentence seems pretty unequivocal. - Ian Dan Busarow wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > > Why don't we ship FreeBSD with bind-8? From what I've read, it > seems like > > the better of the two.. > > The new named.conf syntax. > > You could ask people at install time if they want their named.boot > converted to named.conf and that would work for most people. > > But a lot of us have scripts that update that file and they need > to be re-written to handle the new format. > > I think we need to wait until 8.x has been in circulation for a > while before breaking several years worth of tools. I'd suggest > 3.0 as a target for the new version. By the time that is released > I would guess that most everyone who has automated DNS tools > will have converted on their own. > > Dan >