From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 11:24:16 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65FC37B401 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E257843F93 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oppermann@pipeline.ch) Received: (qmail 97425 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 18:24:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pipeline.ch) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Jun 2003 18:24:23 -0000 Message-ID: <3EE0DBEC.F32AF559@pipeline.ch> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:22:36 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Chittenden References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:24:17 -0000 Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > As most of you are probably already aware, there have been two > > recent releases of BIND 8. Version 8.3.5 is the "bugfix, and new > > minor features" release on the 8.3.x branch that we've currently got > > in the tree already. 8.4.0 is (more or less) the "all the bug fixes > > from 8.3.5, plus support for IPv6 transport" version. > > > > Because there are over 14k lines of diff between the source for 8.3.5 and > > 8.4.0, I'm hesitant to import the latter right away. Instead, as the > > nominal BIND maintainer, I'm proposing the following plan: > > Ummm... I hate to beg the question, but why have a nameserver in the > default installation? All we need is the client resolver libraries > and basic CLI programs. Using DHCP or HTTP as examples: we don't need > dhcpd in the base, just dhclient, and with HTTP, we don't need apache > in our base, but we do have/need fetch. The only reason I can think > of that that would justify us having the nameserver in our base was if > our /etc/resolv.conf shipped with 127.0.0.1 as the default > nameserver... which it doesn't (there is no default resolv.conf, it's > generated based off of user input!). I can only support Sean with his proposal. Very wise. That would make: -STABLE and 4.9R stay at whatever official update de jour of BIND8.3. -CURRENT and 5.1R remove BIND8 from contrib. User will have to install from ports whatever pleases him/her (bind8.3, bind8.4, bind9, djbdns, maradns, ...). -CURRENT and 5.1R import BIND9 Resolver (IPv6 aware if you wish). > PS It'd probably be wise of us to create a new ports major category > called "dns" that why all options are easily identified. Agreed. Such an category has recently, with all these new DNS servers to choose from, become very useful. -- Andre