bundy

At Mon, 19 May 2014 22:02:04 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman <muks at banu.com> wrote:

> > Does this proposal separate repositories for libdns++ and the rest of
> > bundy?  If so, will the bundy repo maintain its own copy of
> > exceptions, util, etc, or will it require the separated libdns++ to
> > build?
>
> It will require the separated libdns++ to build as a
> dependency. libdns++ will be a shared library used by Bundy, Kea,
> queryperfpp, etc. libdns++ is a Bundy dependency anyway.

I don't necessarily think so, since at least conceptually Bundy is a
protocol independent infrastructure.  If and when a ntp server
implementation is added, requiring libdns++ will be unnecessary and
redundant dependency.  On the other hand, we could be realistic that
Bundy will solely be a platform for DNS and DNS only (plus DHCP,
possibly, if we decide to keep the BIND10-derived DHCP stuff in
Bundy).  With the reality that it'll be difficult to find development
and maintenance resource even for the narrowed goal, such a
specialization decision may make sense.  But I'd like to make that
decision first.

A related thing: how can we avoid maintaining multiple copies of m4
macros for commonly used stuff, such as the availability of Boost,
if we maintain two repositories?

For these reasons/questions, I personally prefer keeping the single
repository and just provide an option to build libdns++ only (or to
allow completely excluding DNS related stuff).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya