Re: Way forward with BIND 8

On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:

> FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for
> the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone
> eliminates the possibility of importing BIND 9 at this time.

Sorry to wade in here - let me just ask for clarification on something. Are
you stating as the BIND maintainer around these parts that FreeBSD will
never have BIND 9? That even though BIND 8 is no longer a "current release"
according to the ISC webpage, and they're only carrying it as it is "still
in wide usage" - i.e.  everybody should be upgrading to 9 - you don't plan
to drop 9 in as the standard, default resolver? Not just now, but you have
no plans to do so currently at all? It's your use of the word "eventually"  
which is pricking my ears up here..

This is almost as bad as OpenBSD sticking with BIND 4...
 
> Correct, however historically the project has chosen what it wants to be
> "adventurous" about. Using the "tried and true" versions of things in
> src/contrib gives us more flexibility to be "adventurous" in the parts of
> the tree that are generated by the project.

ISC claim BIND 9 to be the current release. 9.2.2 was released on March 3rd.  
I've been running it on one box here since March 5th. I have no issues. It
is stable. It *will* act as a drop-in replacement for BIND 8 if you wish,
except it's more secure, development is continuing on it, and in my
experience, it performs better.

I'm sure you have your reasons, I'm just not sure what they are. Can you 
spell out the objections? Perhaps off list? I'm just curious... not even 
you, anybody here who can explain why 9 is evil and 8 is great...
 
> 9 in production can do so using the port. Using the combination of NO_BIND
> in /etc/make.conf and PORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 in ports/net/bind9, you can
> even have exactly what you're asking for.

But why make users jump through hoops to run the most secure, stable and 
supported version of BIND? Sorry, just don't get it...

-- 
Paul Robinson