From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 00:13:02 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 BD9FB37B401; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62B943F75; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:13:01 -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 (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003060707130000100567s9e>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:13:01 +0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Sean Chittenden In-Reply-To: <20030607064449.GW65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> Message-ID: <20030606235658.X15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030605235254.W5414@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030606175954.GQ65470@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030607064449.GW65470@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 07:13:03 -0000 On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: > Been running NO_BIND=YES for two years on servers and desktops alike > with zero problems. Have you actually _removed_ all the stuff that was installed originally? Minimally, we're talking about deleting /usr/include before installworld, and cleaning out /usr/lib, and /usr/[s]bin after. > Now, I haven't checked to see what NO_BIND really does, Heh... that's encouraging. :) > > 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. Yes of course... we'd have to test that, and a bunch of other stuff before we could seriously consider this. > :( You had me going for this until I saw you jump to 6-current. I've had numerous posts (most of which have already been posted here), asking not to stir the 5.x pot any more than it already is. I have to respect that. If we can get a solid minimal configuration in 6-current then we can consider bringing it back to 5-stable, perhaps by making NO_BIND the default. I would vigorously oppose any movement to twiddle RELENG_4. > Can we first conclude that removing the server bits and leaving the > client libs/bins would be a good idea? Like I said, I'm very interested in this idea, and if you can divorce it from the timing, that's cool, but we've already seen how intense people get about this issue, so I want to be sure that people know what I'm thinking. The other thing I'd really like to do for 6-current is to split the resolver stuff out of libc. I think that would be the ideal time for such a radical change, but I'm sure there are probably lots of people more qualified to comment on this issue than I. Please keep in mind that for those who really want to adopt the no bind concept, the make.conf option is already available. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection