BIND chroot environment in 10-RELEASE...gone?

[Ronald Klop]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:20:38 +0100, <sthaug at nethelp.no> wrote:

>> > > It was a deliberate decision made by the maintainer. He said the  
>> chroot
>> > > code in the installation was too complicated and would be removed  
>> as a
>> > > part of the installation clean-up to get all BIND related files out  
>> of
>> > > /usr and /etc. I protested at the time as did someone else, but the
>> > > maintainer did not respond. I thnk this was a really, really bad
>> > > decision.
>> > >
>> > > I searched a bit for the thread on removing BIND leftovers, but have
>> > > failed to find it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're probably thinking about my November 17 posting:
>> >  
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-November/075895.html
>> >
>> > I'm glad to see others finally speaking up; I was beginning to think  
>> I was
>> > the only one who thought this was not a good idea.  I'm a bit  
>> surprised
>> > that no one has responded yet.
>>
>> I agree with the protesters here. Removing chroot and symlinking logic
>> in the ports is a significant disservice to FreeBSD users, and will
>> make it harder to use BIND in a sensible way. A net disincentive to
>> use FreeBSD :-(
>
> I have now installed my first 10.1 based name server. I had to spend
> some hours to recreate the changeroot environment that I had so easily
> available in FreeBSD up to 9.x.
>
> <rant>
> Removing the changeroot environment and symlinking logic is a net
> disservice to the FreeBSD community, and disincentive to use FreeBSD.
> </rant>
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no

Isn't this reasoning a bit flawed? Something hurt you so you state it is  
hurting a whole community.

I, for one, am glad the security updates of the Bind software are now  
better maintainable across all FreeBSD version.
NB: using a jail might give an easier to maintain secure environment for  
bind than a chroot. With more restrictions to the process also.

Regards,
Ronald.