Way forward with BIND 8

[Sean Chittenden]

> > but why have a nameserver in the default installation?  All we
> > need is the client resolver libraries and basic CLI programs.
> > Using DHCP or HTTP as examples: we don't need dhcpd in the base,
> > just dhclient, and with HTTP, we don't need apache in our base,
> > but we do have/need fetch.
> 
> As I've said, I have a great deal of sympathy with this
> position. But before we could consider it, we'd have to give it
> thorough testing. I'm particularly nervous about the libraries and
> headers.

Been running NO_BIND=YES for two years on servers and desktops alike
with zero problems.  Now, I haven't checked to see what NO_BIND really
does, but I've had it defined for what feels like eons and had no
problems thus far.

> Has anyone actually run a system without any BIND bits installed?
> Particularly a desktop system, which compiles stuff from ports.

*waves hand* I think we could enlist bento here to validate the theory
of being able to nuke name server bits and confirm the above position.
The only thing that I do worry about is ports like net/openreg that
depend on bind headers and such to build.  Removing bind from the base
installation may turn up a few ports that require bits like these, but
they should properly depend on bind9 as a BUILD_DEPENDS anyway, but I
digress...

> If we can get enough consensus, and most importantly, people to test
> it, I'd be very interested in the idea of removing BIND from
> 6-Current altogether, with the exception of whatever libs/headers
> are deemed essential, and the userland binaries dig and host. Since
> I can already hear the whining about not having nslookup, we should
> probably include that too, although I'd dearly love to nuke it.

:( You had me going for this until I saw you jump to 6-current.  Can
we first conclude that removing the server bits and leaving the client
libs/bins would be a good idea?  At that point, then we can determine
if it'd be a good when to make such a decision.  6 isn't but a
twinkle in folks' eyes at this point so I just assume keep the
discussion centered around what's practical.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden