Using bind9, instead of the default bind8

[Melvyn Sopacua]

On Friday 30 January 2004 20:31, stan wrote:
> 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?

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     
root at sarevok.lan.webteckies.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAREVOK_NOAPM_NODEBUG  
i386
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20040131/0b49ace7/attachment-0001.bin