2010/4/13 Chris Turner <c.tur...@199technologies.org> > Justin C. Sherrill wrote: > >> 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. >> > > AARRGGHH! > > yeaah, and in most "distros" so is the kernel, > and so is the bourne shell, and so is awk, and so is grep > 10: and so is ... > 20: GOTO 10 > > using the word 'linux' and 'system' can sometimes be an oxymoron. > > Unix: > > at origin: > > A self-contained 7" tape of the unix source tree, > and a self-hosting build of that self-same source tree.
I don't know the reason why bind was removed from the source tree, but I guess Jan had valid reasons for doing so (I guess the reason is to simplify maintenance). So why not just install the bind package by default and no one will notice it's no longer in the base? Btw, has anyone used unbound [1] as an alternavtive to bind? Regards, Michael [1]: http://www.unbound.net/
