From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 23:33:41 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 A99A737B401; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFC943F3F; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:33:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003060706334005200mudhte>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 06:33:41 +0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:33:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Sean Chittenden In-Reply-To: <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> Message-ID: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 06:33:41 -0000 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