BIND chroot environment in 10-RELEASE...gone?

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> > > It was a deliberate decision made by the maintainer. He said the chroot 
> > > code in the installation was too complicated and would be removed as a 
> > > part of the installation clean-up to get all BIND related files out of 
> > > /usr and /etc. I protested at the time as did someone else, but the 
> > > maintainer did not respond. I thnk this was a really, really bad 
> > > decision.
> > >
> > > I searched a bit for the thread on removing BIND leftovers, but have 
> > > failed to find it.
> > >
> > 
> > You're probably thinking about my November 17 posting: 
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-November/075895.html
> > 
> > I'm glad to see others finally speaking up; I was beginning to think I was 
> > the only one who thought this was not a good idea.  I'm a bit surprised 
> > that no one has responded yet.
> 
> I agree with the protesters here. Removing chroot and symlinking logic
> in the ports is a significant disservice to FreeBSD users, and will 
> make it harder to use BIND in a sensible way. A net disincentive to
> use FreeBSD :-(

I have now installed my first 10.1 based name server. I had to spend
some hours to recreate the changeroot environment that I had so easily
available in FreeBSD up to 9.x.

<rant>
Removing the changeroot environment and symlinking logic is a net
disservice to the FreeBSD community, and disincentive to use FreeBSD.
</rant>

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no