Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:23:45 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030606142345.GE6086@survey.codeburst.net> In-Reply-To: <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]> <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > > > At 12:09 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote: > > > > > FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please > > > see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.html > > > > I might be able to buy your arguments for supporting BIND 8 > > instead of BIND 9 in -STABLE, but not in -CURRENT. > > Regardless of whether I agree with the points you make here or not, the > FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for > the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone > eliminates the possibility of importing BIND 9 at this time. Why? There's no basis for assuming that everything that goes into -current must be MFCd. The -current branch is for our next generation version of the OS with all the new whizzy features we might want and BIND9 is therefore exactly the sort of thing to add to -current, with no intention of ever MFCing it. The requirement is that nothing goes direct into -stable, that it must all go through -current first. that doesn't however imply that everything going into -current must be suitable for MFCing. -- Tis a wise thing to know what is wanted, wiser still to know when it has been achieved and wisest of all to know when it is unachievable for then striving is folly. [Magician]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606142345.GE6086>