Re: DHCP server in base

On 25 September 2010 21:10, Darren Pilgrim <freebsd_at_bitfreak.org> wrote:

> M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Please no, don't add optional servers to the base.  I already don't like
> sendmail, bind, ntpd and inetd in the base.  These are *optional*
> software--not required for the normal operation of the OS.  They aren't
> even enabled by default except sendmail.  Adding sendmail_enable="NONE"
> to /etc/rc.conf is one of the first things I do on all new systems.  I
> only barely tolerate openssl in the base because it's needed for
> openssh; however, I'd rather both of those be in ports as well.
>
> There's also the issue of updating:
>
> It's very annoying to have to update the OS just to fix a BIND or
> OpenSSL vulnerability and, let's be honest, we'll likely never see the
> last of those.  Rebooting a production server is non-trivial.  By-hand
> partial installworlds on live systems are a disturbing prospect.  If it
> was a port, just update the port.  Its far easier justifying updating a
> port than modifying the OS on a production server.  The Ports System
> makes updating a port so fast and painless I can do many of the
> non-user-facing ones without an announced downtime.
>
> It's trivial installing ports and utterly so installing packages.  I'd
> love to see us use the awesomeness that is the Ports System to manage
> these things.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>


have a look at man src.conf and named_program