[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bind9-chroot (was: questions on ITP)

On 01-09-27 Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 27-Sep-01, 12:39 (CDT), Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org> wrote: 
> > On 01-09-26 Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > The standard Debian distribution kernel is 2.2.
> > And in which way does this force an administrator to use that kernel? He
> > can safely downgrade to a 2.0.x kernel, if he ensured to use mount -O
> > none.
> Sigh. Of course it doesn't force an admin to use 2.2. Just like we're
> not going to force them to use 2.4 to run a chroot bind. But we might

Well, with the current described approach by using mount --bind we'll
force them to either use a 2.4.x kernel or having no chroot directly. 

> make it easier if they do. You were misusing the word "force", and I
> misused it the same way to try to make a point. Apparently I missed.

Well, which word would you then instead propose to use?
> > > Why? Because we don't change every aspect of our default system to cater
> > > to their individual preferences? One of the reasons that there are so
> > 
> > No, because we depend to much on new features instead of staying with
> > the current feature set and building our solution around it.

> 2.4 == current release of the Linux kernel. We use new features all the
> time.

Sorry, but the development on the 2.2.x kernels hasn't been stopped so
far and as far as I remember some people even maintain still 2.0.x
kernels. So saying 2.4.x is the current release is not correct, since
it's mostly the main-development branch currently.
> > That's another problem, but do you really want to get people to move to
> > other distributions, just because we are not able to use cp,rscync or
> > any other tool instead of mount --bind?

> There are typically many ways to accomplish a task in Unix. We, Debian,


> cannot provide options to do it every available way. Someone gets

But we can provide alternatives for people using a kernel 2.4.x and
people using no such kernel. And exactly this alternative system should
be used here, to give people, especially administrator the chance to
decide which method they want to use.

> to make a choice. Our Constitution says that person is the package
> maintainer. If you don't like that, *you* put together an alternative
> chroot-bind package that does it your way.

Or I directly make a note, that next time I install a bind that I want
to chroot, I don't start with debian at all as the os and directly
switch to something else, especially since debian doesn't offer me
support for this. And don't tell me that it would be so difficult to
chroot bind9 without using mount --bind, at least one person in this
thread sayed that this is noawaydays easier then with the old bind

           Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpASI9q7dqOj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: