On 18.12.2010 15:16, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 18.12.2010 11:41, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
>> usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
>> in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thanks to everyone who replied, the feedback was very useful.
Unfortunately I have missed the deadline for getting this into 7.4, so
the current thinking is that I will do the update after the release is
cut so that those who need to stay with the
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton thus spake:
Your feedback on the issue of upgrading BIND in RELENG_7 is welcome.
Sooner is better. :)
Does this mean that BIND would be updated in RELENG_7_x, as well, for the
supported branches?
I understand that they aren't security updat
In message <4d0d408a.2020...@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 12/18/2010 09:16, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article<4d0c49a2.4000...@freebsd.org>, do...@freebsd.org writes:
> >
> >> In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
> >> in the base that is not suppor
On 12/18/2010 21:57, Kostik Belousov wrote:
I do not question your decision of upgrading or leaving the legacy version
of BIND in the legacy branch of FreeBSD src.
You know that, and I know that. :) I just wanted to be sure that no one
got the impression that anyone other than me was responsi
On Dec 17, 2010, at 23:41 , Doug Barton wrote:
> Your feedback on the issue of upgrading BIND in RELENG_7 is welcome.
> Sooner is better. :)
Seriously? For RELENG_7 which is going to be with us a long time. Looks like
we have a bunch of DNS mongers here that have tested out their stuff with
R
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 03:07:11PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/18/2010 03:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>Howdy,
> >>
> >>Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
> >>we have tried to keep the major
On 12/18/2010 16:10, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
/var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
You're not using the default named.conf file then.
Nope.
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> /usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
>> /var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
>
> You're not using the default named.conf file then.
Nope.
> What you've got there is the name
On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
/var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
You're not using the default named.conf file then. What you've got there
is the named default, whether from ports or the base, doesn't matter.
I alw
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> If you start named with the rc.d script it should do that for you.
>
> ll /var/run/named/pid
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root bind 28 Dec 18 13:52 /var/run/named/pid@ ->
> /var/named/var/run/named/pid
>
> Make sure you don't have named_symlink_enable=NO so
On 12/18/2010 14:51, Chuck Swiger wrote:
One gripe is that stopping via rc script fails:
# grep named /etc/rc.conf named_enable="YES"
named_program="/usr/local/sbin/named"
# /etc/rc.d/named stop named not running? (check
/var/run/named/pid).
...because of the "-t /var/named", probably. Is the
On 12/18/2010 09:16, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article<4d0c49a2.4000...@freebsd.org>, do...@freebsd.org writes:
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELE
On 12/18/2010 03:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
consistent throughout a given RELENG_$N br
Hi--
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
> in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
> upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
+1
> I am particularly interested in feedback fr
In article <4d0c49a2.4000...@freebsd.org>, do...@freebsd.org writes:
>In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
>in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
>upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
+1
All users are going to want work
On 12/18/2010 12:41 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
> usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
> in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the
> ports and at minimum run /usr/lo
Hello Doug, List,
I confirm the upgrade from 94 to 96 is very minor.
I'm running several fbsd8.0 and 8.1 servers but I still have a
7.2-STABLE box here.
I just upgraded from the ports collections 9.4.4.ESV.2 to 9.6.3.ESV3
named-checkconf doesn't report any error, neither does checkzone.
I start
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Howdy,
>
> Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
> we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
> consistent throughout a
> > In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
> > in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
> > upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
...
>
> I vote for the upgrade. It's easy and seamless for users,
> as far as I can tell, and
On 18.12.2010 11:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
> usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
> in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the
> ports and at minimum run /usr/local/s
Doug Barton wrote:
> In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
> in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
> upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
I agree.
> I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Howdy,
Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
consistent throughout a given RELENG_$N branch of FreeBSD. Hopefully the
reasoning for this is obvio
23 matches
Mail list logo
