Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current?

From: John Baldwin (jhb_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 03/21/05

  • Next message: Doug Barton: "Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current?" 
    To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:15:35 -0500

    On Saturday 19 March 2005 05:55 pm, Philip Paeps wrote:
    > On 2005-03-18 12:14:03 (+0000), Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
    > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Doug Barton wrote:
    > > > Scott Long wrote:
    > > > > John Baldwin wrote:
    > > > > > 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.
    > > >
    > > > Scott, did you see my response to John's post? I don't consider any of
    > > > this a done deal, but I had to get 9.3.1 in the tree asap in order to
    > > > try and make an MFC before 5.4 goes out. If we collectively decide to
    > > > strip named and friends out of the base, we can still do that. I know
    > > > how to remove files from the vendor branch now. :)
    > >
    > > Personally, I'm something of a fan of keeping the complete BIND in the
    > > base tree as is -- built by default, but not started at boot by default.
    > > It's well-maintained, historically "BSD", and probably widely used as
    > > such.
    >
    > I agree with this. I wasn't very fond of BIND 8, but I've changed my mind
    > after BIND 9 :-) It's a bit like sendmail -- very 'historically' BSD, and
    > just something one expects to 'be there' in a complete way. Like sendmail,
    > it's also very well maintained, which is an argument in favour of keeping
    > it the way it is.

    I agree in that I think BIND is good to have in the tree. I think it should
    just default to install everything. Folks who don't want certain things can
    always prune them out later. Having the server installed can be useful for
    being able to run a local caching nameserver at conferences when the hotel
    DNS is horrible (Boston ATC last year) even if you don't run it all the
    time. :) Also, the release process will be a lot simpler if it just installs
    everything by default. 

    -- 
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Doug Barton: "Re: Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: ADAM Binding
      ... For other application naming contexts that you create in ADAM you ... That helped me bind with ldp, but now if I go to View/Tree and select the ... >I misspoke and did not install the MUI version, ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • Re: logrotate failure
      ... 'named' because bind wasn't installed. ... I guess most folks weren't bit because they do install bind. ... You might want to check to see if you still have a bind logrotate file ... I repeat, no upgrade, fresh install. ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: ADAM Binding
      ... That helped me bind with ldp, but now if I go to View/Tree and select the ... Server error: ... with no imports as part of the install. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • Re: ADAM Binding
      ... Simple bind only works on ADAM security principals or bind proxy objects that point to Windows security principals. ... with no imports as part of the install. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • Re: bind9 prevents external access
      ... I have now installed resolvconf and after rebooting resolvconf ... nameserver: 127.0.0.1 ... >> the allow-recursion part was only to filter for whom your bind will ... A fresh install should resolve names normally. ...
      (Debian-User)