[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NMU'ing for wishlist bugs? (aka: intent to NMU bind9)



* Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au) wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:19, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > No, don't.  If admins want it that way, admins will set it up that way.
> > By default, since the vast majority of people will *not* have bind
> > installed, do *not* require everyone have a user they will not use.
> 
> I think that the majority of Linux machines have bind installed.  I don't 
> recall the last time I installed Linux without bind, it would be sometime 
> before 1996...
> 
> named is more popular than all news servers combined, more popular than 
> majordomo or uucp ever were (and they are much less popular now), more 
> popular than msql...  These other programs have their accounts in everone's 
> /etc/passwd, why not named?

It's pretty simple, really, those packages are wrong but they're legacy.
They should probably be changed but I imagine it gets kind of hairy
because of how it *used* to be.  The last thing we need to do is to
perpetuate that.

I disagree with your cliam that the majority of Linux machines will have
bind installed.  There are two machines in my house of around 30
machines that have bind.  There is one machine in my lab of 20 machines
at work that has bind.  I'd hardly call that 'most' and I strongly doubt
that my setup is 'odd'.  Machines that I have set up elsewhere either
for people or when helping people install their own Linux system (End
users) have not had bind installed.

	Stephen

Attachment: pgpvSZU1LEU6f.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: