From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 23:44:50 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 7B0D737B401; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from perrin.int.nxad.com (internal.ext.nxad.com [69.1.70.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC07043FAF; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:44:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sean@nxad.com) Received: by perrin.int.nxad.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 30F7F20F00; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:44:49 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20030607064449.GW65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> X-PGP-Key: finger seanc@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3849 3760 1AFE 7B17 11A0 83A6 DD99 E31F BC84 B341 X-Web-Homepage: http://sean.chittenden.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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 06:44:50 -0000 > > 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. Been running NO_BIND=YES for two years on servers and desktops alike with zero problems. Now, I haven't checked to see what NO_BIND really does, but I've had it defined for what feels like eons and had no problems thus far. > Has anyone actually run a system without any BIND bits installed? > Particularly a desktop system, which compiles stuff from ports. *waves hand* I think we could enlist bento here to validate the theory of being able to nuke name server bits and confirm the above position. The only thing that I do worry about is ports like net/openreg that depend on bind headers and such to build. Removing bind from the base installation may turn up a few ports that require bits like these, but they should properly depend on bind9 as a BUILD_DEPENDS anyway, but I digress... > 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. :( You had me going for this until I saw you jump to 6-current. Can we first conclude that removing the server bits and leaving the client libs/bins would be a good idea? At that point, then we can determine if it'd be a good when to make such a decision. 6 isn't but a twinkle in folks' eyes at this point so I just assume keep the discussion centered around what's practical. -sc -- Sean Chittenden