bind.tcz (x86 8.0) dependency list incorrect (libjson-c.tcz?)

[cochon]

As per subject, the x86 8.0 dependency list for bind.tcz includes non-existent libjson-c.tcz, the x86_64 branch seems to be correct.

[cochon@host ~]$ curl http://repo.tinycorelinux.net/8.x/x86/tcz/bind.tcz.dep
libcap.tcz
openssl.tcz
libxml2.tcz
libjson-c.tcz
[cochon@host ~]$ curl http://repo.tinycorelinux.net/8.x/x86_64/tcz/bind.tcz.dep
libcap.tcz
openssl.tcz
libxml2.tcz
json-c.tcz

I'm not sure which, if any, bind components actually needs the json libraries at all, but that's another matter.

[andyj]

You are correct, libxml2 and libjson-c are not required for bind on 32-bit. I don't recall off the top of my head but probably because the build failed and I haven't had the time to research it. On 64-bit they add the ability to dump live status info in xml or json formats.

[hiro]

bind needs xml nowadays? that seems so wrong!
perhaps somebody should make a djbdns package

[Rich]

Hi hiro
According to this:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/server/bind.html
all the dependencies are optional, except  json-c  which is not even mentioned.

[cochon]

I suppose it depends on whether the xml/json functionality is 'optionally' linked in to the build by the package maintainer.

The purpose of my post was more to point out that the package name in the x86 dependency list needs changing from libjson-c.tcz to json-c.tcz in any event, even if it's temporarily not actually needed.

At the moment it's not possible to install the bind package under 8.0 x86 without manual intervention, as tce-load fails the dependency check looking for the misnamed json package, which does actually exist as json-c.tcz in the x86 repo.

[hiro]

i guess that makes the x86 branch the more correct one. thanks, rich.

for the time being you might want to take the older bind package that got compiled for tc5...

[andyj]

Is the ability to get status from named while it's running that much of a problem? If nobody wants it I'll drop it.

[Juanito]

tc-8.x x86 bind dep file adjusted

[hiro]

andyj, personally i'd disable non-essential options for the default extension.
it used to be common here to make a second extension with all kinds of bells and whistles in cases where some bloated features were anyway really needed by some few people.