Re: HEADS UP: BIND Removal. Short instructions for migration to
2010/4/12, Justin C. Sherrill <justin@shiningsilence.com>:
> On Sun, April 11, 2010 3:50 pm, Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
>
>> Doing away with named(8) in base is okay with me, but removing the other
>> tools that are part of bind (namely host(1) and dig(1)) isn't. They're
>> too useful and too common not to be expected in a base system.
>
> Don't a number of Linux systems ship without those tools unless added via
> a separate package? I know, I know - "it's that way in Linux" isn't
> necessarily a compelling reason.
My debian box has a bunch of packages for bind, like server part,
various libraries and client part (dig, host..). Can't we just do the
same thing? Remove server and leave libraries and client utilities? As
far as I understand it's okay from security point to have a bit
outdated version if we don't have the server.
> If this causes a problem, we could add BIND from pkgsrc as part of the
> install. I'd like to see more stuff done that way, really.
We can move a lot of contrib/ into pkgsrc, but, hey, we still need
patches and maintenance, so what's the point? It would be only harder,
because we need to keep cross-platform nature of pkgsrc then.
--
Alexander Polakov | plhk.ru
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 8 之 11 篇)：