Re: Way forward with BIND 8

At 6:02 PM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:

>  You've failed to grasp the distinction I made between "adventursome bits
>  in contrib" vs. "adventursome bits in the rest of src/." Also, SMPng is a
>  really good example of my point... it's a major API change IN FREEBSD CODE
>  that definitely belongs in HEAD, for eventual -stable'ification of that
>  branch. If we decide to do the same thing with BIND, it should be in the
>  next major development branch. There is already enough excitement in what
>  will be RELENG_5.

	IMO, that's okay.  However, I find this to be a rather different 
statement than you made on the website, and that you have previously 
stated within this thread.  If you care to update the website to 
reflect this new position, I would be happy to let this thread drop.

	See my other message for more.

>  A) My level of involvement in BIND development is none of your business.
>  B) My level of involvement in BIND development is not even a little bit
>  related to whether bind 9 is suitable to import into FreeBSD yet. You've
>  confused the thing we're trying to prove, "Is bind 9 ready for freebsd?"
>  with a premise in your own absurd logic, "Because bind 9 is the best thing
>  ever, dougb should fix it so he can put it in freebsd."

	You're the maintainer of the BIND code within FreeBSD.  You 
should be feeding changes back to the ISC based on your work, to make 
FreeBSD a better home for BIND and BIND a better client for FreeBSD. 
If you're not doing that, then, IMO, you're not doing your job.

	In that case, perhaps it would be better if we got someone from 
the ISC to take over, in somewhat the same way that we have Gregory 
Neil Shapiro supporting sendmail within FreeBSD.

>  You've also completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out
>  that everyone who wants what you're advocating (no bind 8 in the base,
>  and/or having bind 9 in the base) can have it, right now, no waiting. The
>  fact that it requires to extra, extremely painless configuration steps is,
>  arguably, unfortunate, however I don't think it's too much to ask, at
>  least in the near term.

	For me, this subject has nothing to do with what people are 
capable of doing, if they so choose.  At issue is what is the default 
software installed out-of-the-box.


	As I said above, if you want to hold off on importing BIND 9 
until after the looming CURRENT/STABLE transition, I have no problems 
with that.  However, I would like to see you update the web page you 
previously mentioned.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles_at_skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)