Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:15:09 +0900 From: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile Message-ID: <20040930201509S.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200409301024.i8UAOODZ008744@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200409301024.i8UAOODZ008744@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank for working a better bind9 configuration, but:
dougb> Modified files:
dougb> etc Makefile
dougb> Log:
dougb> Install namedb stuff to ${DESTDIR}/var/named/etc/namedb instead
dougb> of relying on the symlink in ${DESTDIR}/etc/namedb.
Recent changes impose me that it would be hard to use named _without_
having a chroot sandbox. Is it true and/or intented? If so,
src/etc/rc.d/named script doesn't need to care if have named_chroot="".
At this time (until I've tested chrooted named by _myself_), I don't
want to use chroot sandbox for named(8) -- can I still do that?
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040930201509S.matusita>