Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:25:52 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <200102191725.f1JHPqW61137@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:39:16 PST." <20010218233916.J28286@lizzy.bugworks.com> References: <20010218233916.J28286@lizzy.bugworks.com> <200102190547.WAA12829@usr05.primenet.com> <3A90CA94.D7CBCB65@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010218233916.J28286@lizzy.bugworks.com> Jos Backus writes: : [This is rapidly turning into a bikeshed...] It is perfect bikeshed material. : > That, along with the unmaintainability of the software fails to convince me : > it is a viable replacement for BIND. : : Again, what's there to maintain? Fix bugs/security problems? It is a showstopper to have readonly code in the tree. That has been FreeBSD's policy for a long time. If there's a security bug, we'd be prevented from fixing it until the author could be contacted and he produces a fix, that's unacceptible. We'd be prevented from even fixing a #include name that the author somehow got wrong. The author is also an jerk to deal with, that's strike two. He's at least two orders of magnituded harder to deal with than any other author of software we have in the tree. In short, I don't care if djbdns is better than bind, it won't go into the tree because of these problems. The license and author combined make it a showstopper. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102191725.f1JHPqW61137>