Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:30:07 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: tundra@tundraware.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Finally Converting From Bind 8 -> Bind 9 Message-ID: <4698A5AF.5090604@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4697DC7E.7000809@tundraware.com> References: <468972C5.9090902@tundraware.com> <200707021722.05724.josh@tcbug.org> <4697A498.5000501@tundraware.com> <4697AE4C.8070909@dial.pipex.com> <4697DC7E.7000809@tundraware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Daneliuk wrote: > Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > >> Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> >>> 2) Better still is there some sort of "include" mechanism where I could >>> keep a flat file of public host information for use by db.external, >>> but include it into db.internal. >> >> >> I don't think there is, but let someone who uses bind more than I do >> give a definitive on that :-) >> >> What you *can* do, irrespective of bind version, is to have two files >> which you pre-process with m4, and have a third file which m4 >> includes on both the others. >> >> So you start with: >> >> internal.M4 which includes "shared" >> external.M4 which also includes "shared" >> shared which gets included in the other two. >> >> Then m4 internal.M4 > internal and m4 external.M4 -> external. >> >> Bind then loads internal and external. > > > A reasonable and very Unix-ish solution, certainly. Though, I think > the subsequent post on this thread regarding $INCLUDE is probably more > elegant ;) > Certainly, since bind supports it (it's even in my Bind 8 book, though I never noticed it before). Of course, you can do a heck of a lot more with m4, and it's not limited to bind, but in this case I would say that simplicity wins hands down ;-) --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4698A5AF.5090604>