Re: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
+++ stan [freebsd] [30-01-04 14:31 -0500]: | On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:52:12PM -, Edmund Craske wrote: | There's something wrong with the rc.conf stuff for named if you install the bind9 port over the base bind8 (by doing a make | -DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 install clean in dns/bind9) because of differences in command line arguments. Of course, you could just | work it out and hash it together, or leave the base bind8 alone entirely and install bind9 as a separate port... It doesn't really | matter either way, just make sure you're executing the bind9 named instead of the bind8 one. | | | Thnaks for the advice. | | I found the startup flags issue. it's as simple as not needing the -g | bind. Only the -u bind is allowd. | | I suppose I should make an effort to run this chrooted. Given that I did | specify the DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 optin, would the correct palce tp | chroot be /etc/namedb? | | -- | They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve | neither liberty nor safety. | -- Benjamin Franklin | | -- following is the line from /etc/defaults/rc.conf named_program=/usr/sbin/named Now in your rc.conf file change the path. Shantanoo ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
What's involed in using bind9, instead of the default bind 8. I have made the port, but it seems that I probably need to somehow delete the existing bind8, right? I see the entry in /etc/defaults/mak.conf that instructs the buld process to not build it, but I already did a make world before finding that. -- They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
stan writes: What's involed in using bind9, instead of the default bind 8. I have made the port, but it seems that I probably need to somehow delete the existing bind8, right? Look in /etc/rc.conf - there are variables for the bind program and command line flags. You will also want to check the configuration files. There are some obscure but potentially important changes between the versions. I think bind provides a tool for this. Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
There's something wrong with the rc.conf stuff for named if you install the bind9 port over the base bind8 (by doing a make -DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 install clean in dns/bind9) because of differences in command line arguments. Of course, you could just work it out and hash it together, or leave the base bind8 alone entirely and install bind9 as a separate port... It doesn't really matter either way, just make sure you're executing the bind9 named instead of the bind8 one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Huff Sent: 30 January 2004 15:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8 stan writes: What's involed in using bind9, instead of the default bind 8. I have made the port, but it seems that I probably need to somehow delete the existing bind8, right? Look in /etc/rc.conf - there are variables for the bind program and command line flags. You will also want to check the configuration files. There are some obscure but potentially important changes between the versions. I think bind provides a tool for this. Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free bsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:52:12PM -, Edmund Craske wrote: There's something wrong with the rc.conf stuff for named if you install the bind9 port over the base bind8 (by doing a make -DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 install clean in dns/bind9) because of differences in command line arguments. Of course, you could just work it out and hash it together, or leave the base bind8 alone entirely and install bind9 as a separate port... It doesn't really matter either way, just make sure you're executing the bind9 named instead of the bind8 one. Thnaks for the advice. I found the startup flags issue. it's as simple as not needing the -g bind. Only the -u bind is allowd. I suppose I should make an effort to run this chrooted. Given that I did specify the DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 optin, would the correct palce tp chroot be /etc/namedb? -- They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8
On Friday 30 January 2004 20:31, stan wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:52:12PM -, Edmund Craske wrote: There's something wrong with the rc.conf stuff for named if you install the bind9 port over the base bind8 (by doing a make -DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 install clean in dns/bind9) because of differences in command line arguments. Of course, you could just work it out and hash it together, or leave the base bind8 alone entirely and install bind9 as a separate port... It doesn't really matter either way, just make sure you're executing the bind9 named instead of the bind8 one. Thnaks for the advice. I found the startup flags issue. it's as simple as not needing the -g bind. Only the -u bind is allowd. I suppose I should make an effort to run this chrooted. Given that I did specify the DPORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9 optin, would the correct palce tp chroot be /etc/namedb? I've got a patch for this for -CURRENT (rcng), filed it at: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=61647 -- Melvyn === FreeBSD sarevok.webteckies.org 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #0: Wed Jan 28 18:01:18 CET 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAREVOK_NOAPM_NODEBUG i386 === pgp0.pgp Description: signature
