Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:06:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Eir Nym <eirnym@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND from system and from ports Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1004091700340.2076@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <l2sac29a5e51004070247j8906bc4oc55ebda6e18e634a@mail.gmail.com> References: <l2sac29a5e51004070247j8906bc4oc55ebda6e18e634a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Eir Nym wrote: > All is good in BIND in system, except it depends on ports tree with > various options. > I have to do followed algorithm, to enable these options: > 1) make and install base system > 2) install needed dependencies from ports tree There is another step here, enable optional dependencies that are not enabled by default. > 3) rebuild and reinstall world > > This is more complex than: > 1) make and install base system > 2) install same(?) BIND from ports tree with same options So do that. :) Nothing requires you to use the optional mechanism in the base. > Why does base system has any dependencies from ports? > I know about application features, but special cases aren't special > enough to break the rules, isn't it? You haven't actually expressed a problem here. Can you enumerate any actual concerns you have, and what the implications of them are? FWIW, I added the options that exist now in response to user demand. People wanted to be able to use BIND in the base with those options enabled. hth, Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1004091700340.2076>