Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:50:32 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Mark Kamichoff <prox@prolixium.com> Subject: Re: BIND9 built w/--disable-ipv6 on 8.1-STABLE Message-ID: <201009220950.32294.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100922095724.C31898@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4C98F433.6070506@FreeBSD.org> <20100921193101.GA95238@night.db.net> <20100922095724.C31898@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:02:08 am Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> >>> |> | why don't we want IPv6 enabled by default on new BIND installations?
> >>> |>
> >>> |> It has to do with whether or not IPv6 support is compiled into the
> >>> |> FreeBSD base system which is compiling BIND. If the configure option
> > ...
> >>> If I'm still alive when IPv6 is the norm and IPv4 is the exception, I
> >>> promise to give it another look. :)
> >
> > IPv6 is more prevalent than you think. I can't understand the illogic
> > of turning it off.
>
> Can't we just do what lib/bind/config.mk already does?
>
> Index: usr.sbin/named/Makefile
> ===================================================================
> --- usr.sbin/named/Makefile (revision 211503)
> +++ usr.sbin/named/Makefile (working copy)
> @@ -9,7 +9,10 @@ SRCDIR= ${BIND_DIR}/bin/named
>
> PROG= named
>
> -CONFIGARGS='--prefix=/usr' '--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--enable-threads' '--disable-ipv6' '--enable-getifaddrs' '--
disable-linux-caps' '--with-openssl=/usr' '--with-randomdev=/dev/random'
> +CONFIGARGS='--prefix=/usr' '--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--enable-threads' '--enable-getifaddrs' '--disable-linux-caps'
'--with-openssl=/usr' '--with-randomdev=/dev/random'
> +.if ${MK_INET6_SUPPORT} == "no"
> +CONFIGARGS+='--disable-ipv6'
> +.endif
>
> # Optional features
> .if ${MK_BIND_LARGE_FILE} == "yes"
>
> and leave it to the user to build world without INET6 support if (s)he
> build the kernel without it?
Actually, I frequently build custom kernels w/o INET6, but don't necessarily
disable INET6 for the world build. However, why can't BIND just be fixed to
have sane behavior if the kernel doesn't support INET6? Other applications
like sendmail don't need this sort of special treatment, they just don't use
IPv6 if it isn't present.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009220950.32294.jhb>