Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 04:10:22 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <a06001223bb06f7d94b78@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <20030606171720.H15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <a06001214bb060a199205@[10.0.1.2]> <20030606024813.Y5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606133644.GB49662@iconoplex.co.uk> <20030606171720.H15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 5:31 PM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Paul Robinson wrote:
>> let me just ask for clarification on something. Are you stating as the
>> BIND maintainer around these parts that FreeBSD will never have BIND 9?
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Someone else already pointed out
> that I said "at this time" above. I plan to look at this issue again for
> 6-current, but right now, it's not a suitable choice, in my opinion.
This is a rather different statement than you previously gave. I
understand the current state of 5.x, and if you want to hold off on
importing BIND 9 into the tree until after this has become the new
-STABLE branch and a new -CURRENT branch has been created for 6.x, I
don't have a problem with that.
But this is not at all how I interpreted your previous statements
-- they were much more of an absolute "It's not ready" nature, and
had nothing to do with the situation that FreeBSD finds itself in at
the moment with regards to the 5.x tree.
> This is not accurate. There are some things that named in bind 8 can do
> that named in bind 9 won't (and won't ever). There is also the fact that
> output from dig and host are different, which can cause problems with
> scripts.
Yes, there are differences in the output of dig, etc.... Those
are known. I've had to adapt scripts that I maintain which use these
tools, and which are included in the BIND contrib/ directory. This
is a done deal, and with respect to the ISC version of BIND, it's not
going to change -- they've made the cutover, these changes have
happened, people have adjusted their code, and it would be too
painful to change it all back again.
Unless you want to permanently fork off your own version of BIND
where none of these things happen, you're just plain out of luck.
> For these reasons alone, we can't even consider MFC'ing bind 9 to
> RELENG_4, it's too big of a POLA violation.
I did not ask for that. I would not have asked for that. I do
want to see BIND 9 brought into the FreeBSD code base for -CURRENT.
If now is not the right time to do that because of the transition
underway, then I would not mind a relatively short delay while the
FreeBSD project makes the necessary changes so that it can import
BIND 9.
However, IMO these issues have more to do with the status of
-CURRENT at the moment than it does with BIND 9.
> Development is continuing on BIND 8 as well, thus the 8.4.x branch, which
> includes IPv6 transport.
Very limited development. All primary development is being done
for BIND 9, and occasionally things are back-ported.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"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(+++)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a06001223bb06f7d94b78>