From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 15:54:14 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 E0CF837B401; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6491843FB1; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:54:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h56MsAtS004941; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:54:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:30:16 +0200 To: Doug Barton From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: Brad Knowles cc: freebsd-current@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 22:54:15 -0000 At 3:01 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote: > 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. I'm sorry, plenty of things have been done in -CURRENT that could not possibly be MFC'ed to -STABLE. Yes, once the leap to the next version is done and the particular RELENG tree that used to be -CURRENT becomes the new -STABLE, things would migrate down. Are you saying that the new SMP code could not have been done, because it could not be MFC'ed to -STABLE? I'm sorry, this is a completely false argument. >> There's no sense re-hashing all these issues in e-mail > > .... and yet you felt the need to do so. No, I didn't. If I had, I would have cut-n-pasted all those specific points into my e-mail message. As it was, I mentioned one or two points on either side, and referred people to the rest. > Nothing I've had to say on this issue should be (or I think reasonably can > be) interpreted as a flame. I've simply stated the reasons I think that > BIND 9 isn't suitable for one particular purpose. In which case, I would submit that you should be more involved in the development of BIND, so that (in your mind) it can become suitable for this purpose. Are you a member of the BIND Forum (see )? Are you on the bind-workers mailing list? IMO, if you want to claim that BIND 9 isn't suitable for production use, then I believe you should be prepared to help change that situation. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)