Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 22:53:40 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re:BIND segway -> python -> first-class ports Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1312032238220.15897@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.313.1386119137.1390.freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 12/4/13, 9:05 AM, Mark Felder said: > ----------------- > >> There was no alternative; we couldn't keep BIND in base. BIND 9 will >> certainly have a EoL before the EoL of FreeBSD 10.x, and we can't use >> BIND 10 because it requires importing Python to base. > > I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that we should have a minimal > Python in "base". > More and more people are expecting it and more and more software needs it. > > But maybe the problem is our definition of "base". > > I have said before that in my opinion we should have two classes of ports. > Mechanically they are handled the same but class 1 ports are "standard > additions", > and if they don't work it's a "stop-ship" condition.. These would be MAJOR > ports.. > like a minimal python, a minimal Perl (ok yuk but some people would insist), > BIND, Sendmail, bash, and other things that people EXPECT to be in a FreeBSD > system. > If you break such a port it has the same weight as breaking something in > base, > but it's not base.. +1. I am concerned by the tendency towards Nazism in base. I would like to see the usual suspects (BIND, sendmail) kept in base. If we have to import a minimal python (into some place that ports won't see it, as Alfred suggests), then so be it. Updating ports is mostly a crap-shoot. With FreeBSD 9.x-stable, I can build and install world and get a mostly complete system, with BIND, sendmail, NAT, IPFW, etc. If something breaks, I know that it'll be fixed pretty quick, and don't need to be so concerned. If a port breaks, yeah, sure, it might get fixed, but in the mean time hundreds of other ports have been updated and some other dependency might have broken something. It's sometimes like playing whack-a-mole. Things are getting better, with pkgng & poudriere, though there is not a -stable ports tree to match -stable src. >> Keep in mind that Unbound is not planned to be a permanent addition to >> base either. It's merely a stop-gap until Capser is complete, which will >> then provide the DNS services in base. >> http://blog.des.no/2013/09/dns-again-a-clarification/ > > That makes removing BIND even less sensible if you are > forcing people to go through all this pain TWICE. We were promised in spirit > if not words that the BIND port would be pretty much a drop-in replacement. > but it appears that FreeBSD users are going to have to do quite a bit more > work due to this dance. Will there be a Unbound port that is a drop-in > replacement for in-base unbound? +1 again. Why not keep BIND in, and move to Casper once it is complete? <back to lurking> -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1312032238220.15897>