:Mike Holling wrote:
:
:It will probably go into /sbin, /bin, or /stand. These are statically
:linked exacutables.
:
:> I built a static version of the WIDE client and server, both were only
:> around 140K. What's the problem? It's not like putting emacs in the base
:> install or anything. I still run FreeBSD on a 386/40 with a 40M MFM main
:> drive, and even so I'm not worried about the "bloat" of adding DHCP. Lots
:
:Bloat by any other name is still bloat.
:
:> Windows comes with DHCP. Heck, even my old Mac IIci running System 7.5.5
:> comes with DHCP. It's small and increasingly useful, why not make it part
:> of the base distribution? Or would you rather have FreeBSD be like
:> RedHat, where you have to install an RPM for just about everything?
:
:Where do you draw the line on the base system? Security is
:important so add tcp_wrappers? More and more documentation is released
:in html, so add apache?
:
:Once something is added to the base distribution, it seldomly
:gets removed?
:
:--
:Steve
I think what goes into the base distribution depends on where we
think TheRestOfTheWorld is heading. dhcpd use has exploded in
recent years and it is unlikely to go away for a long, long time.
dhcpd also supports traditional bootp protocols such as those used
by BOOTP kernels. I think it would be an excellent addition to our
base system.
However, someone needs to do a serious security check on it. I
did a quick once-over of the code a few months ago and its security
is extremely poor. For example, I had to commit some fairly
serious bounds checking to dhcpd's ( I forget which version ) DNS
resolution routines. Without a security audit, enabling the thing
by default is just asking to get hacked.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dil...@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
