Re: ISC's EoL dhcp suite, including dhcpd
Martin Neitzel <[email protected]> Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:51:08 +0200 (CEST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.network |
|---|---|
| Organization | Gaertner Datensysteme, Marshlabs |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>> You really need DHCP client for this, NOT server. > And what does that DCHP client communicate with? bootpd(8) for the win! Half in jest. (I really run it instead of DHCPD, mostly because It Just Works and I'm too lazy to learn new syntax.) On a more serious note: I also like our system to be self-contained/self-sufficient, i.e. having servers for everything we need as clients. For example, I am not really happy that we have only the OpenLDAP client software but not the server component. Those few extra slap* binaries wouldn't be much of an extra burden, even if unused. The main burden resides with libraries already coming the clients, shared by the server components. If you need the server, and install it with "pkgin install openldap-server", you'll end up with all the client files duplicated, as in: /usr/bin/ldapsearch Version 2.4.23 (nbsd-9) or 2.5.6 (nbsd-10) /usr/pkg/bin/ldapsearch Version 2.6.9 because of % pkgin show-deps openldap-server direct dependencies for openldap-server-2.6.9 openldap-client>=2.3.27nb1 libltdl>=2.4.2 and thusly the installation of openldap-client-2.6.9 pkg, even though or existing clients from base would be "good enough", version-wise. And there you have it: we waste much more space for the sake of saving just a little space. And let me tell you: I'm too freaking senile to not get confused by the duplistic hodge-pogde of two client/lib versions. How do I *exactly* know that I'm easily confused? Because I wanted to make my first pkg-audit CVE exemption just a few days ago, and it took me two days. Why? Because during the first day, I learned during testing that $ pkg_admin audit won't pick up my INGORE_URL=... entry made in the newly created file /etc/pkg_install.conf. Because what I run is really /usr/pkg/sbin/pkg_admin, and that refers to /usr/pkg/etc/pkg_install.conf. No big deal, mv /etc/pkg_install.conf /usr/pkg/etc/pkg_install.conf, and the test succeeds: the CVE is now ignored. A night passes, and the nightly /etc/security job reports the vulnerabilty once more. Because it uses /usr/sbin/pkg_admin, stupid! No big deal, mv /usr/pkg/etc/pkg_install.conf /etc/pkg_install.conf, or throw a symlink, or choose any other poison. Martin