* Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy
@ 2003-03-16 15:37 99% ` Thomas T. Veldhouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse @ 2003-03-16 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Stroller, gentoo-dev; +Cc: stroller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stroller" <gentoogimp@myrealbox.com>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Cc: <stroller@bigfoot.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy
>Whilst I can't comment on your other points, I supect that the short answer
to this last is >because "that's the way that Berkeley (?) package them'.
Uhm -- no they didn't. They are in the same source tarball.
>I can see good reason for having 2 separate packages: Joe User buys his DNS
hosting >service from ISP.net, as he lives out in the country & can't run a
24/7 Bind server (his >servers are at another.isp.net & bigISP.com). He
wants to query his DNS config >periodically, however, to check it, and so he
can make requests to >customer.admin@ISP.net; consequently Joe User needs
Bind-tools, but not Bind itself.
I can not. The size of the additional named binary is small. Very small.
The cost of building the entire package twice is much bigger. I can see
having a separate package that installs only the tools, but I can not see
having the bind package not install the tools in the first place.
Tom Veldhouse
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2003-03-14 23:48 [gentoo-dev] ISC-Bind inconsistancy Stroller
2003-03-16 15:37 99% ` Thomas T. Veldhouse
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox