New BIND 9 chroot directories

Doug Barton DougB at
Tue Oct 5 00:27:45 PDT 2004

[ I'm snipping the bits that we agreed on, thanks for taking the time to 
consider my perspective. ]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Makoto Matsushita wrote:

> DougB> All that said, the defaults are just the defaults. The thing
> DougB> that people really need to keep in mind is that if you want to
> DougB> change it, you can.
> However, unfortunately it's _default_ -- no matter it is intended or
> not, some of users feel that FreeBSD the OS _enforces_ users to
> configure named in that way.

Well, I'm sorry to say that I know of no way that we can fix this 
problem. I'm certainly not going to try to re-engineer something so that 
some users can avoid feeling a pressure that doesn't really exist. :)

> As we already seen, there are preferences on "directory names for zone
> files (master/slave v.s. m/s)."  Imagine you like to put your master
> zone file under ${chrootdir}/etc/namedb/M, and find that there is
> ${chrootdir}/etc/namedb/master which is bogus for you.

In the defaults don't work for you, you should edit 
/etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.dist. That's why we give you the bits to play 

> Here's a simple patch to remove master/slave directories.

I'm sorry to say, that this idea is not suitable. The default needs to 
be a full-featured installation that users can enable out of the box to 
have a functional resolving name server configuration, and provide a 
guideline to users who want to do more complex things. Users who want to 
do REALLY complex things have a higher learning curve,  and there is no 
way that we can avoid that.

In short, the defaults work, and do nothing to prevent users from doing 
other things.



     This .signature sanitized for your protection

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list