Subject: Re: threads support (scheduler activation) and libraries
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/25/2002 10:26:38
> >> >Another question, I suppose, is whether there is an even newer bind9
> >> >set we should be planning on ultimately moving to.
> >> as far as libbind (libc resolver) is concerned, there's almost no
> >> difference between BIND8 and BIND9.
> >We should probably extract our changes from the resolver and re-apply
> >them to a bind8/9 codebase.
> the problem is, many of BIND4 -> BIND8/9 changes implement identical
> function to netbsd changes (irs.conf vs nsdispatch, IPv6 support,
> and such) so we need to pick one of them.
> - pick ISC one if you want to be in sync with BIND)
> - pick netbsd one if you want backward compat
We want to be in sync with the bind8/9 code base primarily so we can
pick up bug fixes and such easily. I think we want to keep our
nsswitch infrastructure rather than the irs infrastructure. However,
it would be better if that was applied as a patch against bind9
instead of bind4.
Perry E. Metzger email@example.com
NetBSD: The right OS for your embedded design. http://www.wasabisystems.com/