Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Subject: Re: Results of BIND RFC Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1004021411260.8566@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20100402165002.71A8B1CC09@ptavv.es.net> References: <20100402165002.71A8B1CC09@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700 >> From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> >> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org >> >> I disagree (so what else is new?) It should be kept out of the base >> system. KISS: >> >> Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excellent. >> >> Doug making a separate port for BIND-esque DNS query/maintenance tools = >> excellent. >> >> Both of the above can be made into packages. Vendors who use FreeBSD >> can incorporate said package(s) into their build infrastructure. Folks >> who do not have Internet connections (yet for some reason want said DNS >> tools) can install the package(s) from CD/DVD/USB. >> >> I want the bikeshed to be black. :-) > > I have very mixed feelings on this. I agree with arguments I have seen > on both sides. I like being able to install FreeBSD and have a well > integrated system with all of the basic tools installed for basic > use. Things play together well. > > I don't use many of the base system tools. I use cups, postfix, > customized ssh, and the ports version of BIND. I don't build the stuff I > don't need (src.conf) and I don't mind them being there. > > On the other hand, for complex, heavy duty ports, keeping up to date > with externally maintains tools (contrib) is a pain and the base system > can get stuck with rather out of date tools as a result. (Remember > perl?) Unless there is very strong support for a contributed tools, it's > hopeless and, if the tool is evolving rapidly, as BIND is with DNSSEC, > it's still hopeless. I really dread having to update my ports. I hate all the bloated dependencies that a lot of ports have. It's sometimes a hit or miss situtation; you never know whether your ports are going to build (update) fully or not. And it takes forever. Our ports team does a fantastic job, so no diss intended. But I am concerned about moving BIND into ports, even if there is a tools-only port. With BIND in base, I don't have to worry about updating or when to update - someone else decides when to update/patch the base BIND and I am happy with that. All I have to do is buildworld, which I do much more often than update ports. If there is already a WITHOUT_BIND knob, then I really don't see what advantage there is in moving BIND out of base. Anyone that wants to use a different resolver can already do that, with the only limitation that they have to buildworld to remove the base bind. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1004021411260.8566>