From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 13 19:53:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539F5106566C for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:53:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A037C8FC13 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz20 with SMTP id 20so230455bwz.13 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:53:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=10wuYQUPpqrPjvDTbPnoMY4T3ASG2BLNxYt34K3tvaI=; b=QdqRwwGB3D8Qgl8iVJRxtnxBTnAyKOWID0MbSdN32clU5wwDT56rfwUw3KJqydJ4FH 3ecE+w6ZFManxmJUJ6sCVU7pXnHBw54gk3j3jahXKzIzvMaF/HPVJYGmjh3ZZX+mcnAP eRkrhGY+9vPZH1Zb+ezIsAhDxmUcLB06OoOv4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xSDk4pHkr/ClRlwDdV+7rn757VKZXNT6h2HLCWcwzF2CclebXp4fG6j7p8Fgt9uEYx +u9VXaIUVbtkkN0jT2VFtB8rgvx2awMKNaq/Iiv8HH21KqLN+SgG0aT5Jc0aaYQoAMPh fG0F8YLgU0Quj4hqgb0XL1JUCL8RwudQG746c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.118.65 with SMTP id u1mr3543545bkq.169.1284407620441; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.80.167 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:53:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C8ACE52.8060000@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C8A5CA0.1050700@feral.com> <4C8A7ACB.9070408@FreeBSD.org> <20100910234830.87641e07.ray@ddteam.net> <4C8ACE52.8060000@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:53:40 +0200 Message-ID: From: David DEMELIER To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Aleksandr Rybalko , Julien Laffaye , Matthew Jacob , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DHCP server in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:53:42 -0000 2010/9/11 Doug Barton : > On 9/10/2010 1:48 PM, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> another argument about hostapd :) if have access point we must have >> way to assign IP for AP clients. > > To start with, your assumption is wrong. DHCPd is not *actually* a > requirement, although I admit that practically it is. > >> Last spring I made firmware based on FreeBSD for router with only 4MB >> NOR flash (D-Link DIR-320). > > In this category (micro-miniaturization) you're already in the "significa= nt > customization needed" area, which means that general arguments about "the > base" don't apply. > >> Since this device is router I must be >> able to serve DHCP. And current implementation of dhcpclient, that we >> have, is same isc-dhcp, and I replace system dhcpclient with ports >> one+dhcpd but with small patch that put basic dhcp utils onto >> libdhcp.so. > > Your argument is creative and well thought out, but I personally don't fi= nd > it persuasive. Counter arguments that come immediately to mind are: > 1. The DHCP server is not going to benefit any but a small minority of > FreeBSD users. > 2. The software is already available in the ports tree, and adding a > port/package of it really is not an overwhelming burden. > > More generally, the main reason I want to keep more stuff out of the base= , > and remove some of the stuff that's in there now, is that it makes > maintenance difficult across FreeBSD branches. We have a general policy t= hat > if we have a major version N of something in a release branch that we don= 't > upgrade that major version without a really good reason to avoid POLA > surprises for our users. Once again using BIND as an example, this has le= d > to a really old and past-EOL version of BIND in FreeBSD 6 which I've only > gotten away with because anyone doing serious DNS work nowadays has to > upgrade to at least 9.6 anyway. But it's an ugly situation, and I don't w= ant > to repeat it. > I agree but like Aleksandr said, almost 70% of dhcp code is already in base so adding 1Mb of dhcpd code wouldn't be too much. I like the idea to keep some parts in the ports tree and move out from the base. Perl is a great example, I don't really understand why it's in the base, then the port need to rewrite the links into the base hierarchy and I think this is bad. > The problems get worse and/or more complex with the more 3rd party stuff = you > start including in the base. In part because of the product lifecycle iss= ues > that are similar to BIND's, but also due to the possibility of licensing > issues (such as with gcc and/or other GPL software) and other more esoter= ic > factors. > > Even with home-grown stuff like our pkg_* tools we have problems because > when we want to introduce new features (or deprecate old ones) there is > currently a _minimum_ 3-year cycle we have to follow in order to make sur= e > that the new feature is/is not available on all supported versions of > FreeBSD. That's the main motivation behind my continuing to repeat the > suggestion to move those tools specifically into the ports tree so that w= e > can better support innovation in our ports/packages system. > > In my view what we've needed to do for a long time now is to seriously st= rip > down the notion of what "the base" should be to those items that are need= ed > to work together for a specific API/ABI/AKI release, and move everything > else into the ports tree. (Obviously there would be some exemptions made = for > really basic/vital stuff like ls, etc.) We can do this in a way that find= s a > middle ground between the linux model where literally everything is a > package and the traditional BSD model of providing a "complete system," > which is hardly ever true since I've never been involved with any FreeBSD > system administration where there were absolutely no ports/packages > installed at all. > > Such a system could also be streamlined by creating a ports virtual categ= ory > (something like "system") the packages for which could be included in the > install media as long as we are judicious about what goes in there. Thing= s > like wpa_supplicant, dhclient, DNS tools, etc. could all be in that > category, and all we'd have to do to make that work is to very slightly > expand the list of questions that sysinstall already asks. > > So this is a much longer version of my previous response which hopefully > gives you more background about why it's a bad idea to add *any* more 3rd > party stuff to the base. > > > Doug > > -- > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0... and that's just a little bit of history re= peating. > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0-- Propellerheads > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Improve the effectiveness of your Internet pre= sence with > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a domain name makeover! =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://Su= persetSolutions.com/ > > --=20 Demelier David