Re: Results of BIND RFC

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:

>> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
>> From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd_at_jdc.parodius.com>
>> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable_at_freebsd.org
>>
>> I disagree (so what else is new?)  It should be kept out of the base
>> system.  KISS:
>>
>> Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excellent.
>>
>> Doug making a separate port for BIND-esque DNS query/maintenance tools =
>> excellent.
>>
>> Both of the above can be made into packages.  Vendors who use FreeBSD
>> can incorporate said package(s) into their build infrastructure.  Folks
>> who do not have Internet connections (yet for some reason want said DNS
>> tools) can install the package(s) from CD/DVD/USB.
>>
>> I want the bikeshed to be black.  :-)
>
> I have very mixed feelings on this. I agree with arguments I have seen
> on both sides. I like being able to install FreeBSD and have a well
> integrated system with all of the basic tools installed for basic
> use. Things play together well.
>
> I don't use many of the base system tools. I use cups, postfix,
> customized ssh, and the ports version of BIND. I don't build the stuff I
> don't need (src.conf) and I don't mind them being there.
>
> On the other hand, for complex, heavy duty ports, keeping up to date
> with externally maintains tools (contrib) is a pain and the base system
> can get stuck with rather out of date tools as a result. (Remember
> perl?) Unless there is very strong support for a contributed tools, it's
> hopeless and, if the tool is evolving rapidly, as BIND is with DNSSEC,
> it's still hopeless.

I really dread having to update my ports.  I hate all the bloated
dependencies that a lot of ports have.  It's sometimes a hit or miss
situtation; you never know whether your ports are going to build
(update) fully or not.  And it takes forever.  Our ports team
does a fantastic job, so no diss intended.  But I am concerned
about moving BIND into ports, even if there is a tools-only port.

With BIND in base, I don't have to worry about updating or when
to update - someone else decides when to update/patch the base
BIND and I am happy with that.  All I have to do is buildworld,
which I do much more often than update ports.

If there is already a WITHOUT_BIND knob, then I really don't
see what advantage there is in moving BIND out of base.  Anyone
that wants to use a different resolver can already do that,
with the only limitation that they have to buildworld to
remove the base bind.

-- 
DE