Re: When bind9 reinstalls, no db.root
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> This terse reply is obviously inappropriate. If you are annoyed, stop
> writing.
No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and tactful
response.
> I was asking for real examples in order to discuss how the case of bind
> and db.root is *not* a member of that set and how there may be a genuine
> problem with the handling of installing over missing configuration files.
Are you saying that you think that the situation with this particular
conffile is different enough, and that there are enough other similar
conffiles, that it justifies different handling by dpkg? If so, I think
that I would disagree.
In the particular case of BIND, it is entirely reasonable to move the entire
configuration somewhere else (such as into a chroot) and remove /etc/bind
and its contents. It would be confusing to have them reappear when BIND is
upgraded.
> As far as I can tell there is no way to pass --force-confmiss to dpkg
> when using apt-get. Perhaps this is the only real omission.
man 5 apt.conf, search for 'dpkg', 6th match.
> Still, breaking bind's access to root name servers is particularly
> troublesome because it may tend to break all net access. It may be
> worthwhile to remove db.root from the list of configuration files.
> Especially, because this list isn't something anyone should need to
> change.
The conffile system does nothing to break BIND's access to root nameservers;
this only happens if an administrator explicitly removes db.root. If this
was an accident, they need to reinstall with --force-confmiss. If not, then
their change is preserved as it should be. What purpose would be served by
making db.root not a conffile?
--
- mdz
Reply to: