Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02, DougB wrote about "Re: Way forward with BIND 8":
> >> FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please
> >> see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.html
Among other things: standard resolver is
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
> This is a rather different statement than you previously gave.
I've been extremely consistent in saying that I'm talking about the right
thing to do _now_. I purposely tried to avoid confusing the issue with
detailed plans for the future, however no
At 6:02 PM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
You've failed to grasp the distinction I made between "adventursome bits
in contrib" vs. "adventursome bits in the rest of src/." Also, SMPng is a
really good example of my point... it's a major API change IN FREEBSD CODE
that definitely belongs
At 5:31 PM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Paul Robinson wrote:
let me just ask for clarification on something. Are you stating as the
BIND maintainer around these parts that FreeBSD will never have BIND 9?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Someone else already po
Wow you've so completely missed the point that I hesitate to respond
to this, but I suppose I should try.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:01 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > Regardless of whether I agree with the points you make here or not, the
> > FreeBSD devel
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote:
> I seem to remember that part of the issue is that FreeBSD pulls in the
> resolver libraries from BIND.
Only indirectly. The resolver code actually hasn't been updated in a
while, unfortunately.
> I actually would like to see BIND completely
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Paul Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for
> > the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone
> > eliminates the possibility of importing
At 3:01 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
Regardless of whether I agree with the points you make here or not, the
FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for
the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone
eliminates the possibility of impo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Bill Moran wrote:
> So, as I see it, the FreeBSD developers carefully evaluate claims of "newer,
> better" and make decisions based on internal testing and experience - not
> marketing hype. Of course, the BIND folks don't want to continue to maintain
> BIND 8, so it's only na
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for
the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone
eliminates the possibility of importing BIND 9 at this time.
Sorry to wade i
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> > At 12:09 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please
> > > see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.h
On 2003.06.06 14:36:44 +0100, Paul Robinson wrote:
> This is almost as bad as OpenBSD sticking with BIND 4...
OpenBSD has actually uses BIND 9 now...
--
Simon L. Nielsen
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:01:02AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> FreeBSD development model requires that what we import in -current, for
> the most part, be what we plan to eventually MFC. That factor alone
> eliminates the possibility of importing BIND 9 at this time.
Sorry to wade in here - let m
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:09 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please
> > see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.html
>
> I might be able to buy your arguments for supporting BIND 8
At 12:09 AM -0700 2003/06/06, Doug Barton wrote:
FYI, for those wondering why I'm not considering BIND 9 for import, please
see http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/whybind8.html
I might be able to buy your arguments for supporting BIND 8
instead of BIND 9 in -STABLE, but not in -CURRENT.
BIND 9
[ Please respect followups to -arch, thanks. ]
As most of you are probably already aware, there have been two recent
releases of BIND 8. Version 8.3.5 is the "bugfix, and new minor features"
release on the 8.3.x branch that we've currently got in the tree already.
8.4.0 is (more or less) the "all
16 matches
Mail list logo
