This has probably been asked before,
Heh, no, never. :)
That's a relief. :)
but if BIND is available in ports then why is it also available in
contrib?
Couple of reasons, of relatively equal importance depending on who you
speak to. BSD systems have "always" (I haven't verified this, but
people who should know have told me) shipped with dns stuff on board,
so there is resistance to the idea of stripping it out for that
reason. The other thing that is a concern to a lot of people is that
BIND is more than just named. Take a look at the WITHOUT_BIND* knobs
in src.conf(1) in 7-current or make.conf(1) in 6-stable to get an idea
of how things break down. I have a standing offer to either remove
BIND from the base, or flip the defaults for some of those knobs to
"NO" if the community wants it that way.
Makes sense. So to summarize the answer to my question:
* BIND is there in contrib coz lot of stuff depends on it and so its best
left there.
* BIND is also there in ports coz the one there offers you a lot more
build time options, is newer, gets updates faster, and is also easier to
get up and running with out of the box (in some situations atleast).
Neat! :)
Are there any benefits in choosing the one in contrib over the one
in ports?
Advantage to the one in contrib is that it's right there, and the new
default named.conf (and associated files) makes it possible to start
up a local resolver "out of the box."
If you want a greater degree of freedom in build-time configuration,
or you want a version other than what is in your base (for example,
you want to use 9.4.x but you're on a 6-stable machine), then you can
use the ports. The ports also have an option to overwrite the files in
the base if that makes things easier in your environment.
hth,
Thanks!
Rakhesh
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
