BIND REPLACE_BASE option
marquis at roble.com
Wed Jan 14 15:23:02 UTC 2015
Thank you Matt. It is refreshing to hear an actual business case for the
reasons REPLACE_BASE was created. Thank you also for the pointers to a
way of avoid dulpicate binaries. Do you know of more detailed
documentation on how to prevent installworld and freebsd-update from
installing these binaries in the first place?
That leaves the issue of cross-platform compatibility, which is still
broken without REPLACE_BASE. What about those of us who support
environments that aren't BSD monocultures?
>> Well, like I said, REPLACE_BASE was an abomination that should never have
>> existed, now that it's gone, it'll never get back, and you'll never see it
> Doug Barton who used to maintain BIND in both the base system and the port
> used to always say that the version in the base system was only designed to
> be used as a local resolver on a laptop/desktop. If it was used as a proper
> DNS server the port version was meant to be used instead. Based on this it
> makes perfect sense why BIND was replaced with local Unbound in the base, and
> the ports system still has BIND for people that were using it.
> It should have been a very small minor change. If people didn't want to have
> two versions installed then the solution would have been to use WITHOUT_NAMED
> or WITHOUT_BIND whatever the knob was in src.conf so that those files were
> deleted or not installed in the first place. I do exactly this for NTPd,
> OpenSSH, and Unbound all of which I use the port versions for so don't need
> them in the base system.
More information about the freebsd-ports