In message: <4C91100C.5060502_at_FreeBSD.org> Doug Barton <dougb_at_FreeBSD.org> writes: : > 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. True, but that still won't change the dynamic that adding a dhcp server is easy give we have most of one already in the tree. Adding v6 support likely will mean a certain amount of code churn, I'll grant you that. But the code/api churn that's happening is within a single program, making it much easier to MFC as necessary to keep up. : > 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. I take a more nuanced view: we have to evaluate each proposed addition to the system on its merits. One of these criteria is long term viability, but others include how useful is it to the users; how much demand will there be; will including it make the project look good?; will not including it make the project look bad?; etc We'd all like to see a more modular base, but until that nut is cracked, we have a balancing act to perform. WarnerReceived on Fri Sep 17 2010 - 13:31:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:07 UTC