1 July 2008 г. 13:55:46 Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2008/07/01 11:21, Roberto FERNANDEZ wrote:
> > Don't know if my vote counts but here it is.
> >
> > normalize +1
> > daemontools dependency -1
>
> Then it wouldn't be DJBDNS, and you are going against the author's
> wishes, and you are making things more difficult for users, some of
> whom *will*, whatever you tell them, try and follow a mixture of
> docs. Using this will suck. Answering emails asking for help will
> suck too (don't forget they won't just come on ports@, but also
> on djbdns-related mailing lists).
>
> If you're looking for a good normal DNS server that isn't BIND, we
> have good ones in ports; nsd (an authoritative server) and unbound
> (a caching recursive resolver).
>
> If you have chosen to use DJBDNS it's going to be based on reading
> about it beforehand, and then you will already know it is going to
> be "different"...
Well, if someone will create (and maintain, of course) a port, this'll
not stop anyone who wants to compile djbdns directly from sources. So I
don't see the point of blocking such effort. It's all about freedom to
choose what to use. :)
And in case of using native port and vulnerabilty (or other major
problem) found in libc, for example, I do not need to proceed any steps
other than total rebuilding/upgrading installed packages. Less
maintenance, more free time, [what you wish here]. :)
--
Best wishes,
Vadim Zhukov
