bundy

At Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:54:23 +0000,
Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:

> > Regarding libdns++, I think the ideal way is to unify the effort,
> > rather than maintaining the each branch of the fork.  libdns++ was
> > intended to be as standalone as possible from the beginning, and
> > is generally less dependent on other part of BIND 10/Bundy.  Maybe we
> > should make it even more so, e.g., allowing it to be buildable
> > separately.  And, then, ideally, Kea could use it as a third party
> > library just like Boost or log4cplus, and ISC developers could
> > directly contribute to the Bundy version of libdns++ as they find bugs
> > or need for enhancement.
> 
> I kind of like this idea. Making anything standalone that can be
> standalone seems like a good idea. :)
> 
> Should we go ahead and pull libdns++ out of the Bundy repository and
> put it somewhere on its own then? Perhaps still under the bundy-dns
> GitHub organization. I realize this would mean some work on both the
> libdns++ and rest of Bundy, but my guess is that it would not be *too*
> much work...

I'm not sure which is better, between a single tree with selectable
./configure options and separating source trees (and repositories).
For a developer, I guess the former is an easier option.  But, if
separating the repository can improve deployability, I wouldn't be
opposed to that either.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya