Re: A good name for development branch releases package
sorry for the noise that would have been bind9-dev Ron Hall Senior System Administrator IT Services - NCS Core Infrastructure & Applications 514 398 3718 From: bind-users on behalf of Petr Menšík Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:43:55 AM To: Ondřej Surý Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: A good name for development branch releases package On 12/1/21 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: > What if you call it bind9-git or bind9-snapshot? The monthly releases are > development snapshots anyway... That would look like our custom tarballs made from main branch commits. I don't want to do arbitrary releases directly from git. Release notes prepared by ISC are very nice and I certainly want to have them included in the package updates. I think bind9-unstable is far better name, even it is not used directly on any ISC page. But at least is the opposite of stable releases mentioned explicitly. Relation to snapshot might be obvious to you as a developer, but I would not connect it with correct release myself. bind9-git sounds more like git-based zone databases, I don't think it makes it better or more obvious. I like candidates: - bind9-unstable - bind9-dev Any preference for any of them? > > Ondrej > -- > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > ond...@isc.org > >> On 1. 12. 2021, at 13:07, Petr Menšík wrote: >> >> Mainline seems strange term to me. I think it should be used also by ISC >> to identify that major version. When I download an archive, it uses >> Development status. Is mainline word ever used in any documentation for >> BIND9? I have never seen that in any article. I would like to use >> something users can recognize, not to learn by trying. >> >> I know Debian uses -dev suffix for header files, just like we use -devel >> on Fedora. bind-devel package already exists, it cannot be the new >> package name. Development word is a bit overused. bind9-dev might >> confuse user from Debian world, but is short enough and would use ISC >> terminology. >> >> When reading [1], I think bind9-odd might be also name of the package. >> But that name seems even more confusing. It would kind of discourage its >> use. >> >> 1. https://kb.isc.org/docs/aa-01540 >> >> On 11/30/21 19:19, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>> I quite like the nginx naming - stable and mainline. >>> >>> Ondřej >>> -- >>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >>> >>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >>> >>>> On 30. 11. 2021, at 16:10, Petr Menšík wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello BIND users, >>>> >>>> I would like to add a new package of recent BIND9 development release to >>>> Fedora [1] distribution. Current "bind" package contains build of stable >>>> branch 9.16.x release. I think it would be good to keep stable releases >>>> available in Fedora. We still use just bind without 9 suffix. >>>> Theoretically another "bind9" could contain more recent releases. But I >>>> would like to reserve it for current bind package. >>>> >>>> One alternative would be using major version in package name. But I >>>> think one the latest stable release one the latest development releases >>>> would be always enough. bind package should be updated when 9.18.0 is >>>> released. I think development package should follow and upgrade to >>>> 9.19.0 as soon as possible. I would prefer single development package >>>> rolling with major development releases. >>>> >>>> COPR repository of ISC uses "bind9-dev" name. Would you recommend that >>>> name? I kind of like it. Slight disadvantage of this name is similarity >>>> with development headers subpackage, which uses common suffix "-devel" >>>> on Fedora. Development headers are still needed by bind-dyndb-ldap >>>> plugin. It uses bind-devel package now, similar alternative of >>>> development release would be "bind9-dev-devel". It does look like strange. >>>> >>>> Would you help me with a better proposal? What do you think about it? I >>>> don't expect development releases to ever reach Red Hat Enterprise Linux >>>> directly, but it might be build as Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux >>>> with community support. >>>> >>>> I don't want to support installation of both stable and development >>>> packages on single system. It would conflict and only one would ha
Re: A good name for development branch releases package
bind9- if were voting Ron Hall Senior System Administrator IT Services - NCS Core Infrastructure & Applications 514 398 3718 From: bind-users on behalf of Petr Menšík Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:43:55 AM To: Ondřej Surý Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: A good name for development branch releases package On 12/1/21 14:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: > What if you call it bind9-git or bind9-snapshot? The monthly releases are > development snapshots anyway... That would look like our custom tarballs made from main branch commits. I don't want to do arbitrary releases directly from git. Release notes prepared by ISC are very nice and I certainly want to have them included in the package updates. I think bind9-unstable is far better name, even it is not used directly on any ISC page. But at least is the opposite of stable releases mentioned explicitly. Relation to snapshot might be obvious to you as a developer, but I would not connect it with correct release myself. bind9-git sounds more like git-based zone databases, I don't think it makes it better or more obvious. I like candidates: - bind9-unstable - bind9-dev Any preference for any of them? > > Ondrej > -- > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > ond...@isc.org > >> On 1. 12. 2021, at 13:07, Petr Menšík wrote: >> >> Mainline seems strange term to me. I think it should be used also by ISC >> to identify that major version. When I download an archive, it uses >> Development status. Is mainline word ever used in any documentation for >> BIND9? I have never seen that in any article. I would like to use >> something users can recognize, not to learn by trying. >> >> I know Debian uses -dev suffix for header files, just like we use -devel >> on Fedora. bind-devel package already exists, it cannot be the new >> package name. Development word is a bit overused. bind9-dev might >> confuse user from Debian world, but is short enough and would use ISC >> terminology. >> >> When reading [1], I think bind9-odd might be also name of the package. >> But that name seems even more confusing. It would kind of discourage its >> use. >> >> 1. https://kb.isc.org/docs/aa-01540 >> >> On 11/30/21 19:19, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>> I quite like the nginx naming - stable and mainline. >>> >>> Ondřej >>> -- >>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >>> >>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >>> >>>> On 30. 11. 2021, at 16:10, Petr Menšík wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello BIND users, >>>> >>>> I would like to add a new package of recent BIND9 development release to >>>> Fedora [1] distribution. Current "bind" package contains build of stable >>>> branch 9.16.x release. I think it would be good to keep stable releases >>>> available in Fedora. We still use just bind without 9 suffix. >>>> Theoretically another "bind9" could contain more recent releases. But I >>>> would like to reserve it for current bind package. >>>> >>>> One alternative would be using major version in package name. But I >>>> think one the latest stable release one the latest development releases >>>> would be always enough. bind package should be updated when 9.18.0 is >>>> released. I think development package should follow and upgrade to >>>> 9.19.0 as soon as possible. I would prefer single development package >>>> rolling with major development releases. >>>> >>>> COPR repository of ISC uses "bind9-dev" name. Would you recommend that >>>> name? I kind of like it. Slight disadvantage of this name is similarity >>>> with development headers subpackage, which uses common suffix "-devel" >>>> on Fedora. Development headers are still needed by bind-dyndb-ldap >>>> plugin. It uses bind-devel package now, similar alternative of >>>> development release would be "bind9-dev-devel". It does look like strange. >>>> >>>> Would you help me with a better proposal? What do you think about it? I >>>> don't expect development releases to ever reach Red Hat Enterprise Linux >>>> directly, but it might be build as Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux >>>> with community support. >>>> >>>> I don't want to support installation of both stable and development >>>> packages on single system. It would conflict and only one would have to >>>> be choo
Re: DNS Flag Day: I had to open the TCP/53 port
Just about anything (if it is large enough). r On 2019-02-04 08:56 AM, Roberto Carna wrote: Thanks Ben for your response, can you tell me the types of TCP traffic I have to expect in BIND, excepting Zone Tansfer? Thans a lot again!!! El lun., 4 feb. 2019 a las 10:50, Ben Croswell (mailto:ben.crosw...@gmail.com>>) escribió: BIND has always required UDP and TCP 53 for proper functionality. It sometimes mistakenly believed that TCP is only for zone transfers but that is not the case. On Mon, Feb 4, 2019, 8:46 AM Roberto Carna mailto:robertocarn...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear, I have a BIND 9.10 public server and I have delegated some public domains. When I test these domains with the EDNS tool offered in the DNS Flag Day webpage, the test was wrong wit just UDP/53 port opened to Internet. After that, when I opened also TCP/53 port, the test was succesful. Please can you explain me the reason I have to open TCP/53 port to Internet from February 1st to the future??? Really thanks, regards. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org<mailto:bind-users@lists.isc.org> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org<mailto:bind-users@lists.isc.org> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Ron Hall Senior System Administrator, NCS - Core Infrastructure Applications IT Services T: +1 514 398 3718 ron.h...@mcgill.ca<mailto:ron.h...@mcgill.ca> | www.mcgill.ca/it<https://mcgill.ca/it> [cid:part7.AFA911F1.FD188252@mcgill.ca] ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
