On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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.
I think the "everything else we're discussing is an implementation detail" is the part we'll have a problem with. Although Garrett's reply to my email makes sense too. >> 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's not *really* true, there is a "base" like FreeBSD, but what we consider core userland tools like `ls`, come in a package (coreutils). > 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. Agreed. The idea of a "minimally functional system" itself might be flawed. Do you consider having `dig` and `host` essential in a minimally functioning system? I do. It's pretty f'king hard to resolve problems with installing the bind-utils port, if you don't know how to test your DNS :-) The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally standard tools for doing DNS lookups. Taking them away in base to replace them with something else just seems like something that won't really *help* users. Yes, I'm going to be a stickler and say that having EOL code in base isn't the end of the world. It's not ideal, but really.. what is it breaking? If there's a security vulnerability, sure, I understand that it might suck without support from ISC to patch dig/host/nslookup, but when was the last time that happened? _______________________________________________ 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"
