From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 17 19:17:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23D616A4CE; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D4143D5E; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c-24-130-110-32.we.client2.attbi.com[24.130.110.32]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005031719170201200e5tf5e>; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:02 +0000 Message-ID: <4239D7AD.7050004@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:17:01 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050316) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Long References: <42380A1D.1010005@freebsd.org> <200503161749.24588.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <42399D58.3040000@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <42399D58.3040000@samsco.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:03 -0000 Scott Long wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: >> If we are going to do this, then why not just have users install bind >> from ports and only install the client as part of the base system? >> This is what we do with DHCP for example. Basically, if it's going to >> be an optional component, I think it belongs in ports, not the /usr/src. >> > > I agree here, though maybe the argument is moot now that Doug imported > 9.3.1 last night? Not changing the status quo is ok too. Scott, did you see my response to John's post? I don't consider any of this a done deal, but I had to get 9.3.1 in the tree asap in order to try and make an MFC before 5.4 goes out. If we collectively decide to strip named and friends out of the base, we can still do that. I know how to remove files from the vendor branch now. :) Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection