Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:57:36 +0200
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Following vendor release cycle (Was: Re: RFC: Upgrade BIND version in RELENG_7 to BIND 9.6.x)
Message-ID:  <20101219055736.GI33073@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <4D0D3E9F.4010100@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4D0C49A2.4000203@FreeBSD.org> <20101218111538.GZ33073@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4D0D3E9F.4010100@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--vV11x03Douyojv5R
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 03:07:11PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/18/2010 03:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>Howdy,
> >>
> >>Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
> >>we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
> >>consistent throughout a given RELENG_$N branch of FreeBSD. Hopefully the
> >>reasoning for this is obvious, we want to avoid POLA violations.
> >Actually not. My own POV is that we should follow the vendor release
> >cycle, and not the FreeBSD release cycle, for the contributed software.
> >
> >I do not advocate immediate upgrade of the third-party software that
> >reached its EOL, but I think that we should do this without pushback
> >if maintainer consider the neccessity of upgrade.
>=20
> Just to be clear, there were considerable discussions, over a long=20
> period of time; between myself, the release engineers, and the=20
> security-officer team regarding the subject of BIND 9.3 in RELENG_6. I=20
> was given the green light to upgrade if I felt it was necessary (as=20
> you're suggesting here) but the final decision to live with the status=20
> quo was mine, and I accept responsibility for it.
>=20
> My reasoning was as follows:
>=20
> 1. All the latest versions of BIND are available in ports, and I made=20
> sure that they worked in RELENG_6 so that users who wanted to stay at=20
> that OS level but had more serious DNS needs had an easy path.
>=20
> 2. Because BIND 9.3 lacked the ability to do modern DNSSEC anyone who=20
> wanted that feature would have to upgrade anyway.
>=20
> 3. BIND 9.3 was still suitable for the (primary) stated purpose of BIND=
=20
> in the base, a basic local resolving name server.
>=20
> 4. BIND 9.3 was different enough that users migrating from it to more=20
> modern versions were experiencing problems.
>=20
> 5. Users were naturally migrating to RELENG_[78] at a pace which=20
> minimized the impact of the issue.
>=20
> If any of those things had stopped being true my decision would have=20
> been different, but as it was I chose to "grin and bear it" in order to=
=20
> avoid the POLA violation for any users who were actually using BIND 9.3=
=20
> in RELENG_6. However, the circumstances for BIND 9.4 and RELENG_7 are=20
> different, and much more amenable to the upgrade, which is why I'm=20
> proposing it.

I do not question your decision of upgrading or leaving the legacy version
of BIND in the legacy branch of FreeBSD src. I only noted that my personal
POV is that we develop the OS, and not are the vendor of the third-party
software, in this case the BIND. As such, I think that following the
vendor life-cycle for contrib is less resource-intensive for the project,
and should be the default.

If anybody who does the real work feels that it is interesting/nice to
the users/generally better to spend the time neccessary to keep the
upgrade path on the branch smoother, I am fine with this.

--vV11x03Douyojv5R
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk0NntAACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jZtgCdHRVnerwmoio52JpoaDbl5p0d
BBUAnRoIEEQGuMwBfeCfKcmA+nbAMQ6l
=1Hx/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vV11x03Douyojv5R--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101219055736.GI33073>