On 2010-Apr-03 19:01:52 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>Ruben de Groot wrote:
>> defer all questions about moving out of the base system ...
>
>Last I knew, X was not _in_ the base system :)
Well, that's an excellent topic for another bikeshed - Should X be
made part of the base system? I
Ruben de Groot wrote:
> defer all questions about moving out of the base system ...
Last I knew, X was not _in_ the base system :)
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, se
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:08:27PM -0400, Charles Sprickman typed:
> Can we do sendmail next April 1?
Better yet, defer all questions about moving out of the base system by
referring to the Grand Discussion that'll take place *next year* on the
first of april.
___
On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Doug Barton wrote:
Therefore I think that the status quo of having it all in there, and
knobs to turn off the bits you don't want is a good one since it seems
to please the majority of our users. I will continue to maintain the
bind-tools port though, that's somethi
On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:07, Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
(perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a fa
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
> So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
> both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
> (perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
> joy, my apologies. :) And for the rec
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Maybe I'm just a lowly sysadmin and ex-port maintainer, but ...
>
> No, no, no, definitely no, no, and no!!
>
> The greatest thing about FreeBSD is that there is a clear separation
> between
> the "base OS" and everything else (ports, local in
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some
Can we do sendmail next April 1?
Sent from a device with a tiny keyboard
On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:22 PM, "Reko Turja" wrote:
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed
mauve. I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled
this one off...
-Reko
On 2 April 2010, at 04:27, Denny Lin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>>> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
>>> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best dec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
So first of all, yes Virginia, this was an April Fool's Day joke. To
both those for whom this post created a false sense of despair, and
(perhaps more importantly) to those for whom it created a false sense of
joy, my apologies. :) And for the re
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
From: Jeremy Chadwick
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
I disagree (so what else is new?) It should be kept out of the base
system. KISS:
Doug pulling BIND out of the base system / going ports-only = excell
Based on the inspection of the source tree, I want my bikeshed mauve.
I've not been had by AFD jokes in a while but Doug pulled this one
off...
-Reko
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-cur
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:14:54 -0700
> From: Jeremy Chadwick
> Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov
> > writes:
> > >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:0
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:36PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> > concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
>
> Strongly disagree.
I'm with you!
>
> > Or if it cannot, the "base
> > system" needs to start using pkg_* (
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:50AM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> >sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> >it will be to continue maintain
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:51AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
> >"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>
> >Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
>
> Sorry for misunderstanding.
Strongly disagree.
Or if it cannot, the "base
system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being: "I
don't need Kerberos; pkg_delete base-krb5. I also don't need
lib32;
pkg_delete base-lib32". Beautiful concept, h
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past. Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow)
No, it does not need to do that. It migh
> [1]: FreeBSD really needs to move away from the "base system" as a
> concept, as I've ranted about in the past.
Strongly disagree.
> Or if it cannot, the "base
> system" needs to start using pkg_* (somehow) for use, and src.conf
> WITHOUT_xxx (where xxx = some software) removed. Concept being:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The result of the RFC was that bind is not a mandatory component to make "a
usable system", so you argument suffers from bad logic.
With an eye on the date of Doug's suggestive e-mail, I actually am concerned
that we maintain support for DNSSEC va
In message <20100402021715.669838e0.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
>Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Yes, the case can certainly be made that DNS query tool belongs in the
base syst
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:55:07 +
"Poul-Henning Kamp" mentioned:
> In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
> >Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> >Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
> >and it would be a pity to find y
In message <20100402013353.f544e8ad.s...@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov writes:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
>Randy Bush mentioned:
>Ports doesn't support cross-compilation yet,
>and it would be a pity to find yourself
>bootstrapping another tiny arm platform and
>having to use ports to hav
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:26:13 +0900
Randy Bush mentioned:
>
> i don't mind if dig, doc, et alia are not in base, as long as they are a
> separate port from the bind hippo.
>
The major benefit of having them in the base
is the ability to cross-compile them when
building the distribution for anot
> While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
> sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
> it will be to continue maintaining bind tools inside the base (so the
> critical ones like dig and nslookup still will be available), while movin
On 02.04.2010 9:24, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
While it certainly might make sense to drop BIND out of the base, I'm not
sure dropping bind tools as well from it is the best decision. How hard
it will be to continue maintaining bind tools inside the base (so the
critical ones like dig and nslookup s
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:16:59 -0700
Doug Barton mentioned:
>
> Of course this change will have some costs. Users of named who rely on
> the current defaults will have some change management to deal with,
> however the costs will be minimal. The one area that has come up
> repeatedly in previous d
On 04/01/2010 23:48, Randy Bush wrote:
>> May I only hope this is legit and not a April Fool's joke :)
>
> actually, as an unbound user, i would be quite happy to have bind
> removed. bloated, ever-buggy, config religion, ...
>
> randy
At least I hope that this will be removed and added to the
> May I only hope this is legit and not a April Fool's joke :)
actually, as an unbound user, i would be quite happy to have bind
removed. bloated, ever-buggy, config religion, ...
randy
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.
May I only hope this is legit and not a April Fool's joke :)
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Greetings,
SUMMARY
On February 21 I sent a message to freebsd-a...@freebsd.org detailing
the current state of BIND on FreeBSD, and plans for the future. You can
see that message here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2010-February
32 matches
Mail list logo
