Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:13:02 +1200 From: Juha Saarinen <juhasaarinen@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proper way to run bind9 Message-ID: <b34be8420409280513cb764ae@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20040928024928.R5094@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <1096042856.24267.6.camel@purgatory.ceribus.net> <xzpsm97v49e.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040924222550.F6548@URF.trarfvf> <1096064849.1047.7.camel@server.mcneil.com> <20040925001835.U7126@URF.trarfvf> <b34be84204092718334b4b77af@mail.gmail.com> <20040927184543.I911@bo.vpnaa.bet> <b34be84204092719407a20d83f@mail.gmail.com> <20040928024928.R5094@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b34be8420409280513cb764ae>