Nuking parts of the world

[Roman Neuhauser]

# colin.percival at wadham.ox.ac.uk / 2004-03-16 09:58:36 +0000:
> At 09:46 16/03/2004, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> >   usr.sbin/nslookup should be part of freebsd-base-bind, not
> >    freebsd-base, just like dig, host and dnsquery (there's probably
> >    more).
> 
>   I thought about those for quite a while.  I ended up deciding that
> while they are technically part of bind, the most likely reason why
> someone would want to remove bind is if they are replacing the *name
> server* with something else (eg, djbdns), and they would probably be
> surprised if {nslookup, dig, host, dnsquery} disappeared.  The best
> solution might be to tag those four as freebsd-base-bind-client... as
> I said, this was a one-day hack job with all sorts of rough edges.

    maybe -bind-server and -bind-clients would fit the bill for both
    of us. this is about granularity after all.

    on a related note: most of my djbdns installations are because of
    the tools, not the servers, and most users of the djbdns servers
    use the tools (dnsq{,r}, dns{name,ip}, ...) exclusively, judging
    from the mailing list at least.

> >   isn't the freebsd- prefix enough? I mean, from the names I would
> >    expect freebsd-base be a superset of all the freebsd-base-*.
> 
>   Well, the ports tree already has "freebsd-games", "freebsd-uucp",
> and "freebsd-update"; it might be confusing if the -base- were omitted.
> Better to err on the side of verbosity.

    ok, but then freebsd-base should become freebsd-base-base.
    (yes, my obsession is symmetry :)

-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html