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

[Philip Paeps]

On 2005-03-18 12:14:03 (+0000), Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with this.  I wasn't very fond of BIND 8, but I've changed my mind
after BIND 9 :-)  It's a bit like sendmail -- very 'historically' BSD, and
just something one expects to 'be there' in a complete way.  Like sendmail,
it's also very well maintained, which is an argument in favour of keeping it
the way it is.

 - Philip

-- 
Philip Paeps                                    Please don't Cc me, I am
philip at freebsd.org                               subscribed to the list.

  If you can't measure it, I'm not interested.