| 1 |
----- Original Message ----- |
| 2 |
From: "Stroller" <gentoogimp@×××××××××.com> |
| 3 |
To: <gentoo-dev@g.o> |
| 4 |
Cc: <stroller@×××××××.com> |
| 5 |
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:48 PM |
| 6 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>Whilst I can't comment on your other points, I supect that the short answer |
| 11 |
to this last is >because "that's the way that Berkeley (?) package them'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Uhm -- no they didn't. They are in the same source tarball. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>I can see good reason for having 2 separate packages: Joe User buys his DNS |
| 16 |
hosting >service from ISP.net, as he lives out in the country & can't run a |
| 17 |
24/7 Bind server (his >servers are at another.isp.net & bigISP.com). He |
| 18 |
wants to query his DNS config >periodically, however, to check it, and so he |
| 19 |
can make requests to >customer.admin@×××.net; consequently Joe User needs |
| 20 |
Bind-tools, but not Bind itself. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I can not. The size of the additional named binary is small. Very small. |
| 23 |
The cost of building the entire package twice is much bigger. I can see |
| 24 |
having a separate package that installs only the tools, but I can not see |
| 25 |
having the bind package not install the tools in the first place. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tom Veldhouse |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives