From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 8 09:29:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D2E106566C; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:29:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D30161B1B; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FF952FB.10200@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:29:31 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120621 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Vande More References: <4FF2E00E.2030502@FreeBSD.org> <86bojxow6x.fsf@ds4.des.no> <89AB703D-E075-4AAC-AC1B-B358CC4E4E7F@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8C3A1.9080805@FreeBSD.org> <0AFE3C4A-22DB-4134-949F-4D05BBFC4C6C@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8CA35.7040209@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= , FreeBSD Hackers , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:29:32 -0000 On 07/07/2012 17:35, Adam Vande More wrote: > I am unclear on how this solves the main problem I think was stated > about syncing up with release branches. I've already explained this at length in the past. ISC has changed both their release schedule and their policy regarding not allowing new features in a release branch. As a result, they release more frequently than we do, and EOL supported branches sooner than we do. Unbound has different policies and release schedules that are more in line with ours. So in the short term (as in, the next few years) we're better off with unbound in the base. The ideal, long-term solution is to re-think what "The Base" is, and give users more flexibility at install time. Unfortunately, there is a knee-jerk "zomg, we don't want to be like linux!" reaction to that idea which (to date) has prevented a rational discussion about it. I hope that changes. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection