Date: 7 Jun 2003 10:32:19 -0000 From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas Seck) To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Way forward with BIND 8 Message-ID: <20030607103219.9894.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Doug Barton (DougB@freebsd.org):
> 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.
I use Bernstein's DNS server and client programs on my systems. I do a
normal install, chmod 0 all BIND-related server and client programs and
use NO_BIND from then on. This works for me but -- as you already
mentioned -- things probably break in interesting ways for third party
scripts that rely on the presence of dig or nslookup and a particular
output format.
> 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.
I am all for it and would participate in testing.
--Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607103219.9894.qmail>