On 29/09/01 Steve Greenland wrote: > On 29-Sep-01, 05:37 (CDT), Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org> wrote: > > No. If the bind debian package will only support chroot by using mount > > --bind, I will not send in a patch. Especially since like previously > > stated in this discussion it's fairly easy to chroot bind this days and > > I don't see any need for depending on kernel 2.4.x features like 2.4.x > > for this purpose. So instead of sending in a patch, I would stop > > installing debian on any machine that should be a nameserver and switch > > to an os, where either I get a chrooted bind by default or directly can > > build a chroot manually. > Are you still claiming that you *can't* build a manual chroot bind starting > with Debian's bind package? Or are saying: Where did I make that statement? Would you please reread my mails before making wrong assumptions? I'm able to build a bind chroot manually and I'm not depending on debian for this, but also on other distributions or os. > Debian with manual chroot bind == bad. > Other distribution with manual chroot bind == okay. Idiot. Sorry, but where exactly did I write that? If you are not able to parse my messages correctly, then don't try to make wrong assumptions. I sayed that it would be bad if debian would only support a bind chroot via mount --bind and not an alternative for people running a 2.2.x kernel. Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgp6yNu1hPb0P.pgp
Description: PGP signature