From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 4 01:59:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45925F4 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 01:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DD4153B for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 01:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-246-96.lns20.per2.internode.on.net [121.45.246.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB41wnjf010140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:58:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 09:58:43 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re:BIND segway -> python -> first-class ports References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 01:59:02 -0000 On 12/4/13, 9:05 AM, Mark Felder said: ----------------- > There was no alternative; we couldn't keep BIND in base. BIND 9 will > certainly have a EoL before the EoL of FreeBSD 10.x, and we can't use > BIND 10 because it requires importing Python to base. I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that we should have a minimal Python in "base". More and more people are expecting it and more and more software needs it. But maybe the problem is our definition of "base". I have said before that in my opinion we should have two classes of ports. Mechanically they are handled the same but class 1 ports are "standard additions", and if they don't work it's a "stop-ship" condition.. These would be MAJOR ports.. like a minimal python, a minimal Perl (ok yuk but some people would insist), BIND, Sendmail, bash, and other things that people EXPECT to be in a FreeBSD system. If you break such a port it has the same weight as breaking something in base, but it's not base.. > Keep in mind that Unbound is not planned to be a permanent addition to > base either. It's merely a stop-gap until Capser is complete, which will > then provide the DNS services in base. >http://blog.des.no/2013/09/dns-again-a-clarification/ That makes removing BIND even less sensible if you are forcing people to go through all this pain TWICE. We were promised in spirit if not words that the BIND port would be pretty much a drop-in replacement. but it appears that FreeBSD users are going to have to do quite a bit more work due to this dance. Will there be a Unbound port that is a drop-in replacement for in-base unbound?