On 07/08/2012 23:16, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2012 22:43, Avleen Vig wrote:
>>> It would be silly not to keep bind-tools in base.
>>
>> Sounds easy, but not so much in practice. Keeping any of the code
>> doesn't solve the problem of the release cycles not syncing up. And for
>> the vast majority of users needs the tools we will import will be more
>> than adequate.
>
> The question I keep asking myself is:
> "Is this best for the users?"
Carrying BIND code in the base that is past EOL is not good for the
users, period. Everything else we're discussing is an implementation
detail.
> Linux has `nscd` which is a nice caching resolver, but most
> distributions still carry bind-tools in the default install.
A) You're wrong about "most." and B) The Linux distros have a default
set of packages. There is no "base" like there is in FreeBSD. (Thus,
your analogy is flawed.)
That said, I still believe that our idea of what should, and should not
be, in the base system is seriously flawed, and needs to be completely
redone. But that's never going to happen, so I'm trying to work with
what we've got.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
