Time to stop buildling named (and friends) by default in 6-current?

[Robert Watson]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Doug Barton wrote:

> Scott Long wrote:
> > John Baldwin wrote:
> 
> >> If we are going to do this, then why not just have users install bind 
> >> from ports and only install the client as part of the base system?  
> >> This is what we do with DHCP for example.  Basically, if it's going to 
> >> be an optional component, I think it belongs in ports, not the /usr/src.
> > 
> > I agree here, though maybe the argument is moot now that Doug imported
> > 9.3.1 last night?  Not changing the status quo is ok too.
> 
> Scott, did you see my response to John's post? I don't consider any of
> this a done deal, but I had to get 9.3.1 in the tree asap in order to
> try and make an MFC before 5.4 goes out. If we collectively decide to
> strip named and friends out of the base, we can still do that. I know
> how to remove files from the vendor branch now. :)

Personally, I'm something of a fan of keeping the complete BIND in the
base tree as is -- built by default, but not started at boot by default. 
It's well-maintained, historically "BSD", and probably widely used as
such.

Robert N M Watson