Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On 3/23/2012 8:41 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? Yes, see below. If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) I don't like the delete-old stuff, and make no efforts to support it. That said, the solution to your problem is to not use WITHOUT_BIND, but to use the various other WITHOUT_BIND_* knobs, except for WITHOUT_BIND_ETC. Yes, this is clunky; no, I have no plans to change it. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On 24 Mar 2012 21:47, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: On 3/23/2012 8:41 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? Yes, see below. If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) I don't like the delete-old stuff, and make no efforts to support it. That said, the solution to your problem is to not use WITHOUT_BIND, but to use the various other WITHOUT_BIND_* knobs, except for WITHOUT_BIND_ETC. Yes, this is clunky; no, I have no plans to change it. I would agree in the sense that delete-old should not be deleting stuff just because it's set WITHOUT. We should really use two targets, one for old stuff, and one for irrelevant stuff. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 3/23/2012 8:41 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? Yes, see below. If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) I don't like the delete-old stuff, and make no efforts to support it. That said, the solution to your problem is to not use WITHOUT_BIND, but to use the various other WITHOUT_BIND_* knobs, except for WITHOUT_BIND_ETC. Yes, this is clunky; no, I have no plans to change it. Jeeze that was simpler than I thought it was going to be... Thanks! Doug hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection -- ;s =; ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 3/23/2012 8:41 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? Yes, see below. If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) I don't like the delete-old stuff, and make no efforts to support it. That said, the solution to your problem is to not use WITHOUT_BIND, but to use the various other WITHOUT_BIND_* knobs, except for WITHOUT_BIND_ETC. Yes, this is clunky; no, I have no plans to change it. Just to followup and say thanks again... This is what I was looking for. I ended up with just these to accomplish what I wanted on stable/8 machines: /etc/src.conf WITHOUT_BIND_DNSSEC=YES WITHOUT_BIND_LIBS_LWRES=YES WITHOUT_BIND_NAMED=YES WITHOUT_BIND_UTILS=YES And did not use: WITHOUT_BIND_ETC WITHOUT_BIND_MTREE Works as expected. Thanks again Doug. -- ;s =; ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) from source it attempts to remove empty directories from /etc/named/*. When doing this it can only remove empty directories and since master slave usually will have something in it on most systems dynamic gets removed but left to be re-created from /etc/rc.d/named on the next boot. Do you think it would be possible to for say create a USING_BIND_FROM_PORTS make.conf var that could be compared during the (make delete-old) stage so it does not attempt to do anything with /etc/named/* ? but yet still allow it to operate on the rest of the stale files. Thanks. -- ;s =; ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On 23 Mar 2012 15:41, Jason Hellenthal jhellent...@dataix.net wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) from source it attempts to remove empty directories from /etc/named/*. When doing this it can only remove empty directories and since master slave usually will have something in it on most systems dynamic gets removed but left to be re-created from /etc/rc.d/named on the next boot. Do you think it would be possible to for say create a USING_BIND_FROM_PORTS make.conf var that could be compared during the (make delete-old) stage so it does not attempt to do anything with /etc/named/* ? but yet still allow it to operate on the rest of the stale files. Would it be too hackish to have a file .keepme in the dynamic directory? Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:52:48PM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 23 Mar 2012 15:41, Jason Hellenthal jhellent...@dataix.net wrote: Hey Doug, Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening ? If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) from source it attempts to remove empty directories from /etc/named/*. When doing this it can only remove empty directories and since master slave usually will have something in it on most systems dynamic gets removed but left to be re-created from /etc/rc.d/named on the next boot. Do you think it would be possible to for say create a USING_BIND_FROM_PORTS make.conf var that could be compared during the (make delete-old) stage so it does not attempt to do anything with /etc/named/* ? but yet still allow it to operate on the rest of the stale files. Would it be too hackish to have a file .keepme in the dynamic directory? I think that would be fine. But there are other cases too like if named.conf is still in its generic form then it would be removed as well as some other files that still may be of use for bind from ports. I think a more proper way would be to ignore neccesary base system files like /etc/named /var/named. This would make it easier for someone that was using base bind for a while to make an easy transition over ports bind without having to worry about the effects of delete-old. -- ;s =; ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
