Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:31:55 -0500 From: stan <stanb@panix.com> To: Edmund Craske <edmund@m00is.net> Cc: Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Using bind9, instead of the default bind8 Message-ID: <20040130193155.GA27927@teddy.fas.com> In-Reply-To: <002701c3e751$681c53c0$0464a8c0@alpha> References: <16410.32120.8050.315995@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <002701c3e751$681c53c0$0464a8c0@alpha>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:52:12PM -0000, 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040130193155.GA27927>