From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 22 02:28:40 2005 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 ACB0516A4CE; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:28:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055C843D39; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:28:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.1.114] (g35-062.icann.org[192.0.35.62]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20050322022839016006vcq8e>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: <423F82D5.8000309@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:28:37 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <4239D7AD.7050004@freebsd.org> <20050319225507.GH60989@fasolt.home.paeps.cx> <200503210815.35493.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200503210815.35493.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.1 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Philip Paeps cc: Robert Watson cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? 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: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:28:40 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > I agree in that I think BIND is good to have in the tree. I think it should > just default to install everything. Folks who don't want certain things can > always prune them out later. Having the server installed can be useful for > being able to run a local caching nameserver at conferences when the hotel > DNS is horrible (Boston ATC last year) even if you don't run it all the > time. :) Also, the release process will be a lot simpler if it just installs > everything by default. As far as I can see, this comment from John (and the similar one from Robert) represent the consensus viewpoint. I will therefore drop this as an action item unless someone makes a very convincing case to change the current defaults. Thanks to everyone who offered their opinions and support on this topic. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection