Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:13:04 -0400 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories Message-ID: <CAOgwaMt4G02yhU0cbiq_EEwhi4=mgt2kLGJf0Rgb8t9wECsGJA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51F7B5C7.6050008@digsys.bg> References: <CAO%2BPfDctepQY0mGH7H%2BgOSm4HJwhe-RCND%2BmxAArnRxpWiCsjg@mail.gmail.com> <1375186900.23467.3223791.24CB348A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <51F7B5C7.6050008@digsys.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> wrote: > > On 30.07.13 15:21, Mark Felder wrote: > >> People don't seem upset about not having a webserver, IMAP/POP daemon, >> or LDAP server in base, so I don't understand what the big deal is about >> removing BIND. >> > > I believe the primary reason these things are not in the base system is > that they have plenty of dependencies, with possibly conflicting licenses > etc. > > If the concern is over the rare case when you absolutely >> need a DNS recursor and there are none you can reach I suppose we should >> just import Unbound. >> > > There are many and good reasons to include an fully featured name server, > or at least full recursive resolver. For example, for properly supporting > DNSSEC. > We could in theory remove the BIND's authoritative name server > executable... if that is attracting the SAs. > > The justification "reduce the number of SA's", that is, "the bad PR" is > probably not enough. Going that direction, we should consider Comrade > Stalin's maxim "FreeBSD exists, there are problems, here is the solution -- > no FreeBSD, no problems!" :-) > > Daniel > Then , there exists a new problem : "There is no FreeBSD ..." Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMt4G02yhU0cbiq_EEwhi4=mgt2kLGJf0Rgb8t9wECsGJA>