Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories

[Ronald Klop]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:53:08 +0200, Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com>  
wrote:

> On 07/30/2013 08:13 AM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 30.07.13 15:21, Mark Felder wrote:
>>>
>>>> People don't seem upset about not having a webserver, IMAP/POP daemon,
>>>> or LDAP server in base, so I don't understand what the big deal is  
>>>> about
>>>> removing BIND.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the primary reason these things are not in the base system is
>>> that they have plenty of dependencies, with possibly conflicting  
>>> licenses
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>   If the concern is over the rare case when you absolutely
>>>> need a DNS recursor and there are none you can reach I suppose we  
>>>> should
>>>> just import Unbound.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are many and good reasons to include an fully featured name  
>>> server,
>>> or at least full recursive resolver. For example, for properly  
>>> supporting
>>> DNSSEC.
>>> We could in theory remove the BIND's authoritative name server
>>> executable... if that is attracting the SAs.
>>>
>>> The justification "reduce the number of SA's", that is, "the bad PR" is
>>> probably not enough. Going that direction, we should consider Comrade
>>> Stalin's maxim "FreeBSD exists, there are problems, here is the  
>>> solution --
>>> no FreeBSD, no problems!" :-)
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then , there exists a new problem :
>>
>>
>> "There is no FreeBSD ..."
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much .
>>
>>
>
> Exactly.  Either strip everything out of the base
> including things like perl or admit that there is more
> to a modern OS than just kernel and admin tools.
>
>
>

You have perl in base?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/02/05/14/0015234/freebsd-perl-to-be-removed
;-)

Ronald.