Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:59:15 +0100 From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@lansing.dk> To: George Kontostanos <gkontos.mail@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, =?utf-8?Q?=C3=96zkan_KIRIK?= <ozkan.kirik@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Release Engineering Team <re@freebsd.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@freebsd.org>, Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf Message-ID: <868B00D6-101A-4B17-995F-A3E2AFE41908@lansing.dk> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BdUSyp5JWskKU7_oMxuTsZekimtRs2A%2BmEZm=kS-87jNjF9yQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAAcX-AFJ__4CDz7%2BabFoRf%2BecrfOZRFXaos1sYnb85=k_BweEw@mail.gmail.com> <20131103220654.GU52889@FreeBSD.org> <6AA4A8E1-CBCE-4C87-A320-BB08EC76715F@lassitu.de> <CA%2BdUSypfj5Ja%2BKi1tikG19na7Dv96foW3HE%2BTEPaNYOUM9r5Cw@mail.gmail.com> <20131104083443.GZ52889@FreeBSD.org> <2B21E123-23BA-4E07-B9DD-9DE1CDE40D08@FreeBSD.org> <20131104163457.GJ52889@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2BdUSyp5JWskKU7_oMxuTsZekimtRs2A%2BmEZm=kS-87jNjF9yQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 06/11/2013, at 14.22, George Kontostanos <gkontos.mail@gmail.com> wrote= : >=20 >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote= : >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:11:02PM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote: >> E> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 01:41:01AM +0200, George Kontostanos wrote: >> E> > G> > Am 03.11.2013 um 23:06 schrieb Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.o= rg>: >> E> > G> > >> E> > G> > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:05:02PM +0200, =C3=96zkan KIRIK wr= ote: >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> Altough bind removed from FreeBSD 10 distribution, "/= etc/rc.d/named" >> E> > G> > script >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> still exists. >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> and this script depends on "/etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.di= st" file but >> E> > G> > there is >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> no such file in source tree. >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> I think this file was forgotten to be removed. >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> >> E> > G> > > =C3=96> And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/de= faults/rc.conf >> E> > G> > file. >> E> > G> > > >> E> > G> > > Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. >> E> > G> > >> E> > G> > It would be great if the port would learn to install its own sc= ript etc. >> E> > G> > in time for that change. (Unless it=E2=80=99s already there, an= d I=E2=80=99m just too blind >> E> > G> > to see it.) >> E> > G> >> E> > G> No you are not blind. Installing bind from ports still relies on t= he >> E> > G> /etc/rc.d/named script. >> E> > >> E> > Erwin, can you please handle that? >> E> >> E> Things are much worse that this, the ports are completely written unde= r the assumption that there is a Bind in base, which of course would already= break with WITHOUT_BIND before Bind was completely removed. It will be har= d to fix without breaking the installed base of 8 and 9. Sigh. >> E> >> E> I'll try to work on it this week, but unfortunately have a full schedu= le of meetings and travel as well. >=20 > Suggestion. An option to install the rc script would solve that problem.=20= > =20 If only it was that simple, it would have been done a long time ago. As Gle= b points out, the ports are broken by design. The rc script needs a complet= e rewrite, and that's only after fixing all configuration files, setting up c= hroot, etc etc and all that while not breaking the installed base on 8 and 9= . I spent most of yesterday on this and if I'm lucky, I'm halfway through. = =20 Erwin, sent from a phone at the train station >>=20 >> What should we do with src? >>=20 >> IMO, we should proceed with removal of remnants of bind in src. In the wo= rst case, >> if you can't handle it this week, the situation will be the following: >>=20 >> 1) 8.x, 9.x users are okay >> 2) 10+.x users w/o bind are okay >> 3) 10+.x users with bind have problems >>=20 >> If we skip updating src, then situation would be: >>=20 >> 1) 8.x, 9.x users are okay >> 2) 10+.x users w/o bind have problems >> 3) 10+.x users with bind are okay >>=20 >> I think, there are less 10.x users with bind, than 10.x without it. >=20 > Please warn about this in UPDATING. I am personally use 12 FreeBSD servers= as dedicated DNS servers only. =20 > =20 >> -- >> Totus tuus, Glebius. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > George Kontostanos > --- > http://www.aisecure.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?868B00D6-101A-4B17-995F-A3E2AFE41908>