Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:58:36 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@chello.cz> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Nuking parts of the world Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040316094749.037ce0a0@imap.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20040316094624.GA1102@isis.wad.cz> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040316023919.039fa5f0@imap.sfu.ca> <20040316094624.GA1102@isis.wad.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:46 16/03/2004, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> usr.sbin/nslookup should be part of freebsd-base-bind, not
> freebsd-base, just like dig, host and dnsquery (there's probably
> more).
I thought about those for quite a while. I ended up deciding that
while they are technically part of bind, the most likely reason why
someone would want to remove bind is if they are replacing the *name
server* with something else (eg, djbdns), and they would probably be
surprised if {nslookup, dig, host, dnsquery} disappeared. The best
solution might be to tag those four as freebsd-base-bind-client... as
I said, this was a one-day hack job with all sorts of rough edges.
If you want to count those as part of freebsd-base-bind, just
remove the COMPONENT= lines from their respective Makefiles; they'll
inherit the -bind tag from usr.sbin/named/Makefile.inc.
> isn't the freebsd- prefix enough? I mean, from the names I would
> expect freebsd-base be a superset of all the freebsd-base-*.
Well, the ports tree already has "freebsd-games", "freebsd-uucp",
and "freebsd-update"; it might be confusing if the -base- were omitted.
Better to err on the side of verbosity.
Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040316094749.037ce0a0>