Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:30:59 +0100 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Matt Smith <fbsd@xtaz.co.uk>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option Message-ID: <54B66183.8040403@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <20150114120852.GA17865@xtaz.uk> References: <D029D964D3A96A570922090C@ogg.in.absolight.net> <ee422bd630292fe6f7bc5439799667de@lhaven.homeip.net> <2A3ABE9AE68B3CE8E1B7C1A1@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20150113163325.3A8FCBDC24@prod2.absolight.net> <67897B782F897C2A66FCD458@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150113233952.BF862BDC24@prod2.absolight.net> <B5BC1F9B1E9B32C89F11B397@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150114031156.400F2BDC3E@prod2.absolight.net> <507F8738895177F5640A4090@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150114120852.GA17865@xtaz.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Smith wrote: > On Jan 14 12:15, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> >> Well, like I said, REPLACE_BASE was an abomination that should never >> have >> existed, now that it's gone, it'll never get back, and you'll never >> see it >> again. >> > > Doug Barton who used to maintain BIND in both the base system and the > port used to always say that the version in the base system was only > designed to be used as a local resolver on a laptop/desktop. If it was > used as a proper DNS server the port version was meant to be used > instead. Based on this it makes perfect sense why BIND was replaced > with local Unbound in the base, and the ports system still has BIND > for people that were using it. Was this ever documented? (I've been using bind in base for servers for many years and this is the first time I've heard of it - and it is unlikely I'm the only one.) > > It should have been a very small minor change. If people didn't want > to have two versions installed then the solution would have been to > use WITHOUT_NAMED or WITHOUT_BIND whatever the knob was in src.conf so > that those files were deleted or not installed in the first place. I > do exactly this for NTPd, OpenSSH, and Unbound all of which I use the > port versions for so don't need them in the base system. > ..and for those using freebsd-update? Oh and on setting up named after installing from ports it gets chrooted and it has 'problems' seems the chroot mechanism chroots/links in /etc/namedb rather than /usr/local/etc/namedb ... haven't fully gotten to the bottom of it yet, but currently on all machines after freebsd-update (and possibly new installs of 9.3) I ended up creating links between /var/named/usr/local/etc/namedb/named.conf and /usr/local/etc/namedb/named.conf and /etc/namedb/named.conf to get it working.. so something is 'odd' in the mean time my deployment script has been modified to create all the links to get it working so stopped looking at it for the moment. Michelle -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54B66183.8040403>