Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:08:08 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current? Message-ID: <42399D58.3040000@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200503161749.24588.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <42380A1D.1010005@freebsd.org> <200503161749.24588.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2005 05:27 am, Doug Barton wrote: > >>Folks, >> >>Way back at the bsdcon in Foster City when we first started talking about >>importing BIND 9 into the base we also talked about adding more knobs to >>give users finer grained control over which bits of BIND were built, and >>turning off the build of named (and associated binaries) by default. Well, >>the first bit is done, so we're now in the position of being able to flip >>the NO_BIND_NAMED knob (see make.conf(5) for details) to WITH_BIND_NAMED, >>and turn it off by default. Is this something that we're still interested >>in doing? If so, this would be a good time to do it, since I'll be >>importing 9.3.1 sometime in the next couple days (first round of make world >>testing is underway), and we're still early in the life of 6-current. >> >>Of course, this would only be for 6-current, we wouldn't change the >>behavior in RELENG_[45]. >> >>What do you think? > > > If we are going to do this, then why not just have users install bind from > ports and only install the client as part of the base system? This is what > we do with DHCP for example. Basically, if it's going to be an optional > component, I think it belongs in ports, not the /usr/src. > I agree here, though maybe the argument is moot now that Doug imported 9.3.1 last night? Not changing the status quo is ok too. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42399D58.3040000>