BIND REPLACE_BASE option
wblock at wonkity.com
Mon Jan 12 18:57:45 UTC 2015
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Chris H wrote:
> Here is where we will clash; I've been riding *BSD for over 20yrs.
> It's *biggest* asset has been in it's flexibility -- it wasn't another
> Linux "dist", that required me to essentially become a "clone" of
> every other Linux install. The Ports system, and /src allowed one to
> tailor my build/install to meet *my* needs. I wasn't required, in fact
> I was *encouraged*, to have a unique system. Frankly the new pkg(8)
> *requirement* was a complete 180 on this philosophy.
Huh? It is the same as the old package system, required if you want to
use ports or packages. The difference is that pkg is not in base, so it
can be easily upgraded without doing an OS upgrade. Ports continue to
work as they did with the old package system, only package operations
are faster and more reliable.
My main complaint with pkg is the persistent misunderstanding that
binary packages are a direct replacement for ports.
As for the original topic, BIND in base had the same upgrade problems as
the old package system. The port overwriting the base was a convenient
but nasty hack. Not even that convenient, because all that changes with
the port is the config files are in /usr/local/etc rather than /etc. A
chroot adds little security or isolation, and if you want that it should
be in a jail or other type of VM anyway.
More information about the freebsd-ports