Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@×××××.net>
To: Stroller <gentoogimp@×××××××××.com>, gentoo-dev@g.o
Cc: stroller@×××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:37:57
Message-Id: 000901c2ebd2$01fecad0$0101a8c0@cascade
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy by Stroller
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
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'.
13 Uhm -- no they didn't. They are in the same source tarball.
15 >I can see good reason for having 2 separate packages: Joe User buys his DNS
16 hosting >service from, as he lives out in the country & can't run a
17 24/7 Bind server (his >servers are at & 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.
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.
27 Tom Veldhouse
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy Stroller <gentoogimp@×××××××××.com>