From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 23:16:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EB2106566B; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhellenthal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DD28FC1E; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so3615505qyk.13 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ej5Fx8NxWTCtQ3btIgIa2MaRHTuesL6fpNRLYHMdjo=; b=QoiEvZpFDPx0QnaAMpSLN0AdP0vAXRqIvd25rKjXPrAEiyQHxFbXo2LaYem4h9oXR3 GxNh65dOpJLy1euGVgRGQst3Xa/WmLz2hMT41pI61C+CMoieSnQ5ok0ZAWgoKhDCmuba sINah3HA2UBA1C2w3RPU/yneXw+yurgnECplg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jJ02rB/EdQA/Rj4nazSI+AkCN5OIpAd3XSV/OIqXRYbqYDF5Cni0wj084ZtjAvSyUg 19VC8/iAqbRMFf9IGQqja6CmbzpDTq39fuPKEKPJc2sfoH8dJ5uX2ajUHIYvi2juDLMi FM87VS591c6qlchJS0YUwazyn6S1ywQ/BtUWQ= Received: by 10.224.37.19 with SMTP id v19mr855368qad.66.1284160604687; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centel.dataix.local (adsl-99-181-137-20.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net [99.181.137.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r1sm3267205qcq.34.2010.09.10.16.16.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: "J. Hellenthal" Message-ID: <4C8ABC59.9060704@DataIX.net> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:16:41 -0400 From: jhell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100908 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4C8A5CA0.1050700@feral.com> <4C8A7ACB.9070408@FreeBSD.org> <4C8ABBD8.4020109@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4C8ABBD8.4020109@DataIX.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David DEMELIER , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: DHCP server in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:46 -0000 On 09/10/2010 19:14, jhell wrote: > On 09/10/2010 14:36, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 9/10/2010 9:54 AM, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> 2010/9/10 Matthew Jacob: >>>> I think not. You are given the opportunity to install prebuilt >>>> packages at install time, and with a modest amount of effort can >>>> install prebuilt packages afterwards. >>>> >>>> IMO, such as it is, there should be *less* in the base system >>>> than there currently is and more in ports. > >> I agree with Matt on this one, although that shouldn't be a surprise >> since I'm on record saying it often. :) > >>> In this case there are some parts in base/ that could live in >>> ports/ instead of the base directory such as hostapd(8), maybe >>> nobody want to make a usable wireless access point? > >> Unfortunately arguing to include something new in the base because >> something else that you don't agree with is already there is not a >> valid method. The bar is a lot higher for adding things than keeping >> things (for better or worse). > >>> And what about bind too? > >> As I've said many times, I'm ready to have it out when there is >> consensus to do so. The usual discussion goes like this: > >> 1. Get BIND out of the base! 2. If we remove it, the command line >> tools (dig, host, nslookup) go with it. 3. Oh, well, we like those, >> so keep them, but get rid of the rest! 4. BIND is library based, so >> 90% of the work to make the command line tools is building the libs, >> after which building the server and its accessories is trivial work. >> 5. Oh, well, then make knobs to disable the server! 6. That's already >> done. 7. Oh, well, never mind then *mumble mumble* > >> However, all that is likely to change at some point in the future >> (as in, years from now) when BIND 10 becomes the only and/or most >> viable option since it requires a lot of stuff that we are unlikely >> to ever import into the base (like boost, python, etc.). So there is >> hope for you anti-BIND folks yet! :) > > >> Doug > > > This is where I say: I believe it would be the correct route to move > toward a base package system for things like BIND DHCP... the common > stuff that people would like to see in base but not really a > conceptional sound idea. > > My theory behind this goes like this: Make a base package for > bind-server, bind-utils, bind-tools or whatever you want to call them > with the --package-root defined as /. Do this for ports/lang etc... type > of stuff and ship them with the install CD/DVD's. If the user wants the > base port then there is no harm done and they can trivially add it. This > would leave room for other base system options to include too without > having to permanently move things in and out of base because supporting > them in-tree does not make sense or other reasons. > > Specifically I like this type of idea due to not needing to have a > compiler (GCC) installed at all times. It could simply be added and > removed from the base system by package or installed from ports and > allow the end user to choose what they want when they want it. Stuff > like GCC, BIND, DHCP Servers & other languages for this make sense. Why > Not ? > > > Regards, > > PS: I'll coin this idea (base-board-ports) > > .02 > This is also a conversation for another thread. So please do not let it distract you. -- jhell,v