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

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

On 30/09/01, Clint Adams wrote:
> > No, because we already have now for quite some time a bind package in
> > debian without an automatic chroot. So we should either offer a chroot
> > for both kernel versions 2.4.x and 2.2.x or still stay with the old
> > packages offering no automatic chroot.

> Are you heavily drugged?  How is that a preferable situation?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not drugged. And it's a preferable
solution, since we now have at least for over half a year a bind9
package in debian and for a lot longer time a bind package, which
doesn't offer any chroot support and nobody cared about that. Suddenly
as Martin is ITP'ing a bind9-chroot package, someone says, that mount
--bind is available and everyone is now suddenly favoring this solution.
And any discussion about other solutions is partly ignored, wrong
assumptions about comments where made or the one, who is critizing this
idea, is either categorized as: troll, drugged or idiot. 

> Linux 2.4 supports a resource limit on file locks.  2.2 doesn't.

Which helps you exactly how much with the fact, that for example the VM
in 2.4.x kernel is still not well-tested and therefor not a good choice
for a server that can be heavy loaded?

> to switch to another OS as you keep threatening to do.  In any

Thanks for partly ignoring my statements and again addding yourself to
the row of people who made false assumptions about them. :-(

> case, you should stop trolling.

I'm already to fed up with this discussion, since facts are ignored or
people are just don't want to discuss this but only see the "great"
mount --bind solution. It's nice to see how much Debian is focussing
these days on technical solutions based on the latest kernel features
instead of technical solutions that work with every kernel, especially
those proven as stable.

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

Attachment: pgpU9UMLuzwj0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: