Re: bind9-chroot (was: questions on ITP)
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:53:22AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote:
> > Sorry you think so. I genuinely did not see your explanation as to why
> > a partial solution (2.4.x only) would not be better than the current
> > solution. In fact, I genuinely cannot believe that there is such
> > an explanation.
>
> Not all Debian distributions will run Linux as a kernel.
And? An optimal chroot on Hurd would use something similar, tailored to
Hurd. It would be better to have two slightly different implementations
for the Hurd and Linux, rather than one weaker implementation. In
reality, it's not much of an issue if it's Linux-only, as there aren't
many nameservers running the Hurd.
Debian BSD and Lose32 are still vaporware, and a bunch of stuff won't
work on them already. I plan to lose no sleep worrying about what will
and won't work on them until they actually exist (and probably not even
then for Lose32).
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less."
- "Disciple", Stuart Davis
Reply to: