From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  6 12:24:32 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 3438637B401; Fri,  6 Jun 2003 12:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.allcaps.org (allcaps.org [216.240.173.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A4BCF43FB1; Fri,  6 Jun 2003 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bsder@allcaps.org)
Received: from mail.allcaps.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.allcaps.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 68222930D6; Fri,  6 Jun 2003 15:24:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (bsder@localhost)h56JOSgI026568;
	Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:24:28 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.allcaps.org: bsder owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr." <bsder@allcaps.org>
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EE0A4F6.6020201@potentialtech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306061216360.26448-100000@mail.allcaps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
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
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:24:32 -0000

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Bill Moran wrote:

> So, as I see it, the FreeBSD developers carefully evaluate claims of "newer,
> better" and make decisions based on internal testing and experience - not
> marketing hype.  Of course, the BIND folks don't want to continue to maintain
> BIND 8, so it's only natural for them to push BIND 9.

I seem to remember that part of the issue is that FreeBSD pulls in the
resolver libraries from BIND.  Consequently, if you pull BIND 9 in, you 
also get stuck with its resolver libraries.  And there were some issues 
with the BIND 9 libraries ...

I actually would like to see BIND completely excised from the base system.  
However, every time I look at the amount of work required to break the
dependence between the resolver library and BIND, I generally realize that
there is something else I'd much rather be doing.  ;)

-a