Re: bind9-chroot (was: questions on ITP)
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
> 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:
> > 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.
It would be *imperfect* if a chroot solution included in the Debian bind9
packages were specific to 2.4 kernels.
It would be *bad* if the bind9 packages were structured in violation of policy
in order to avoid this imperfection.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: