On 9/15/2010 7:25 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Yea. I agree too. Just because BIND was EOLd in 6 isn't a great > argument against dhcp server. That rather clearly was not the only element of my argument, and not only is it disingenuous for you to indicate that it was, I don't appreciate you doing so. > Most of the code is there anyway, and it isn't evolving as fast as BIND. That is actually a more rational argument, even if I don't agree with it. FWIW, part of the reason that I don't agree with it is that at some point, hopefully in the near future, we will want to include the DHCPv6 client in the mix somewhere; and when we do the code base is not going to be as stable as we have enjoyed so far with the v4 dhclient. > It would be very convenient to have this particular thing in the base, > and we shouldn't be too dogmatic about never having any new 3rd party > things in the base. After all, we just added more compression > utilities to the base, and nobody said a peep. I actually thought that change was rather silly, but it was clear that there was so much critical mass in favor of it that there was no point in stating a dissenting opinion. As part of the project's leadership you should be careful not to mistake silence for agreement, or worse, support. > This is analogous: we > have good opportunity to integrate into the system, and users benefit > from that integration. Given your perspective of wanting more of a complete system in the base I can certainly see how you would be supportive of this change. My intent was to make the argument in a general way that this is the wrong direction to go, and that users would benefit *more* from a robust modularized system. The fact that the v4 DHCPd might accidentally be a good candidate for including in the base today doesn't mean that doing so is the right strategy for the long term. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/Received on Wed Sep 15 2010 - 16:27:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:07 UTC