El Sábado, 2 de Octubre de 2004 10:47, Ruslan Ermilov escribió: > Hi Jose, > > On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:33:37AM +0200, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > > I'm running named in a sandwitch config form: > > named_flags="-u bind -c /var/named/named.conf > > > > After my last update, I've got my /var/named/ dir polluted by a chroot > > setup. I think this is not the way. > > > > /etc/rc.d/named must do this from chroot_autoupdate() only when required > > to do so. > > > > If /var/named must became a system directory, I can move my config > > to /var/namebd or so. But I like to read HEADS UP about those things. > > There was a HEADS up message sent to the current_at_ mailing list. > There is also a relevant entry in src/UPDATING, "20040928". > > Ah, so you must /usr/src/UPDATING - If enabled, the default is now to run named in a chroot + The default is now to run named in a chroot Using /etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.dist from chroot_autoupdate() is not the same that put /var/named in /etc/mtree/BSD.var.dist. Well, moving config to var/namedb. IMHO, this is not a good design. If you ask ten admin about the best named chrooted setup, you'll get, at last, twelve setups. Making strong support for a chrooted named is really needed. But moving the release default setup to a strong model on that not. I'll prefer a sandwidch setup (named_flags="-u bind", named_chroot="") as release default. > Cheers, Thanks for your time, -- josemiReceived on Sat Oct 02 2004 - 07:59:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:15 UTC