Re: DHCP server in base

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/10/2010 14:36, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/10/2010 9:54 AM, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> 2010/9/10 Matthew Jacob<mj_at_feral.com>:
>>> I think not. You are given the opportunity to install prebuilt 
>>> packages at install time, and with a modest amount of effort can
>>> install prebuilt packages afterwards.
>>> 
>>> IMO, such as it is, there should be *less* in the base system
>>> than there currently is and more in ports.
> 
> I agree with Matt on this one, although that shouldn't be a surprise 
> since I'm on record saying it often. :)
> 
>> In this case there are some parts in base/ that could live in
>> ports/ instead of the base directory such as hostapd(8), maybe
>> nobody want to make a usable wireless access point?
> 
> Unfortunately arguing to include something new in the base because 
> something else that you don't agree with is already there is not a
> valid method. The bar is a lot higher for adding things than keeping
> things (for better or worse).
> 
>> And what about bind too?
> 
> As I've said many times, I'm ready to have it out when there is 
> consensus to do so. The usual discussion goes like this:
> 
> 1. Get BIND out of the base! 2. If we remove it, the command line
> tools (dig, host, nslookup) go with it. 3. Oh, well, we like those,
> so keep them, but get rid of the rest! 4. BIND is library based, so
> 90% of the work to make the command line tools is building the libs,
> after which building the server and its accessories is trivial work. 
> 5. Oh, well, then make knobs to disable the server! 6. That's already
> done. 7. Oh, well, never mind then *mumble mumble*
> 
> However, all that is likely to change at some point in the future
> (as in, years from now) when BIND 10 becomes the only and/or most
> viable option since it requires a lot of stuff that we are unlikely
> to ever import into the base (like boost, python, etc.). So there is
> hope for you anti-BIND folks yet! :)
> 
> 
> Doug
> 

This is where I say: I believe it would be the correct route to move
toward a base package system for things like BIND DHCP... the common
stuff that people would like to see in base but not really a
conceptional sound idea.

My theory behind this goes like this: Make a base package for
bind-server, bind-utils, bind-tools or whatever you want to call them
with the --package-root defined as /. Do this for ports/lang etc... type
of stuff and ship them with the install CD/DVD's. If the user wants the
base port then there is no harm done and they can trivially add it. This
would leave room for other base system options to include too without
having to permanently move things in and out of base because supporting
them in-tree does not make sense or other reasons.

Specifically I like this type of idea due to not needing to have a
compiler (GCC) installed at all times. It could simply be added and
removed from the base system by package or installed from ports and
allow the end user to choose what they want when they want it. Stuff
like GCC, BIND, DHCP Servers & other languages for this make sense. Why
Not ?


Regards,

PS: I'll coin this idea (base-board-ports)

.02

- -- 

 jhell,v
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMirvXAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+SocH/3pK3s8L9bOb12a6IhhrKSdI
mJZeFSyMdx3n4olIkd1VhYA2O6Qsl6hUBASitpbiJ3/9Vz/BAcCW2JE+Ub0rDwZT
SG7vk0aaCtjFEBk5xdLM52iDKIGs5uNaKxYQMot0KX4pi/Obm7Pf8AGmQpc8RnSd
PBbUX5T0kzbStPE59tQA9gW2UcTxKtx2up+Pzns8mYvUEb+dgEuwPo2rE10aZKuK
lnfoZ2LclmQg1KmvzZATrRUxFjHdJQqD4PgPFGEAAWVDlzAFnwQhBufYtyT71lqZ
0T+XW5WQUo6WjjtweyV6uhfPeJUuk+DqkmDGw8oJIRfqYOm3yetSKiOoAgmJ9Qo=
=brrR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----