From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 12:13:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB88616A4CE for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:13:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBC843D58 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:13:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from juhasaarinen@gmail.com) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 79so3282289rnk for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.77.44 with SMTP id z44mr492395rna; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.73.29 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:13:02 +1200 From: Juha Saarinen To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <20040928024928.R5094@ync.qbhto.arg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1096042856.24267.6.camel@purgatory.ceribus.net> <20040924222550.F6548@URF.trarfvf> <1096064849.1047.7.camel@server.mcneil.com> <20040925001835.U7126@URF.trarfvf> <20040927184543.I911@bo.vpnaa.bet> <20040928024928.R5094@ync.qbhto.arg> cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proper way to run bind9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juha Saarinen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:13:07 -0000 On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Doug Barton wrote: > I think you missed the part of my previous message where I talked about > how the current system offers the maximum in terms of features and > flexibility. No, not at all. > That same man page then defines the behavior for SIGINT and SIGTERM. > Killing named with a signal in this case is harmless, and should be > functionally equivalent to 'rndc stop', except in those cases where rndc > is buggered for some reason. Yebbut... hows does that justify ignoring the vendor supplied directions for the software in question? We're supposed to use rndc, not signals. > You might want to follow up with this question on > freebsd-rc@freebsd.org. Noted, thanks. -- Juha