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

Doug Barton dougb at FreeBSD.org
Thu Mar 17 03:01:19 PST 2005

John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 05:27 am, Doug Barton 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 have a certain sympathy with that position, however the two situations are 
a bit different. With dhcp you're only talking about a couple of binaries. 
For reference, here's the relevant section of make.conf(5):

                    (bool) Set to avoid building or installing the DNSSEC
                    related binaries, dnssec-keygen(8) and

      NO_BIND_ETC   (bool) Set to avoid installing the default files to

                    (bool) Set to avoid installing the lightweight resolver
                    library in /usr/lib.  The library that is private to the
                    build system may still be built as needed.

                    (bool) Set to avoid running mtree(8) to create the chroot
                    directory structure under /var/named, and avoid creating
                    an /etc/namedb symlink to the chroot directory.  This
                    option should typically be used together with

                    (bool) Set to avoid building or installing named(8),
                    named.reload(8), named-checkconf(8), named-checkzone(8),
                    rndc(8), and rndc-confgen(8).

                    (bool) Set to avoid building or installing the BIND user-
                    land utilities, dig(1), host(1), nslookup(1), and

                    (bool) Set to install BIND libraries and include files.

The community has said that they want to keep everything that's in _UTILS in 
the base. We've already made installing the libraries optional, except for 
lwres which nectar has plans for. So we could lose the binaries under named, 
and probably dnssec as well, but because the lwresd daemon uses a lot of the 
same code as named, we can't get rid of the sources.

So in the end, My view of the thing is that we're better off having the 
whole thing in the tree, but defaulting the parts that are less likely to be 
used to off. But, I'm willing to listen to other arguments.



     This .signature sanitized for your protection

More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list