Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:33:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Sean Chittenden <seanc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Ummm... I hate to beg the question,
Hey, I like to hear begging... wait, wrong list, sorry.
> 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.
As I've said, I have a great deal of sympathy with this position. But
before we could consider it, we'd have to give it thorough testing. I'm
particularly nervous about the libraries and headers.
Has anyone actually run a system without any BIND bits installed?
Particularly a desktop system, which compiles stuff from ports.
If we can get enough consensus, and most importantly, people to test it,
I'd be very interested in the idea of removing BIND from 6-Current
altogether, with the exception of whatever libs/headers are deemed
essential, and the userland binaries dig and host. Since I can already
hear the whining about not having nslookup, we should probably include
that too, although I'd dearly love to nuke it.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606231209.F15459>