From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 03:32:15 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 8E1F337B401 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BB043F93 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 03:32:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmseck-usenet@netcologne.de) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-110-124.netcologne.de [213.168.110.124]) by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 0745C389C8 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:32:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 9895 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Jun 2003 10:32:19 -0000 Date: 7 Jun 2003 10:32:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20030607103219.9894.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas Seck) To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Organization: private site In-Reply-To: <20030606231209.F15459@znfgre.qbhto.arg> X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.architechture X-Attribution: tms Mail-Copies-To: nobody 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 10:32:15 -0000 * 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