FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

Hello CentOS Community Members,

What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?

A similar problem (to BZ561299) was first reported five (5) years ago
on the isc.org mailing list.

Is there any support among the CentOS community for a REPO of current
vintage for such important functions as BIND et al?

That question is based on the presumption that time is taking us to a
more complete and correct implementation of the basic functions like
DNS.

IOW, is CentOS philosophy of tracking RH so nailed-to-the-wall that it
is blasphemy to propose a REPO of current editions of certain very
important functions?

kind regards/ldv

A quote from a long term mentor now at Internet2:

"It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches
for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in
fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at
Dr. Vaughn's place of employment."

===

Reported: 2010-02-03 05:32 EST by Duncan (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561299):

Additional info:

Works fine in Fedora 4,8,9 and 11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4
release 4 (Nahant Update 8) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.1
(Tikanga)

Fails in 5.4 and Fedora 10.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On 02/02/2011 05:22 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
> code base for such important programs as BIND et al?

Did you ask them ? what did they say ?

> Is there any support among the CentOS community for a REPO of current
> vintage for such important functions as BIND et al?

you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should
be in 5.6 soon ?


- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 04:28 PM
David Brian Chait
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

It takes fewer resources to back-port for and support a single suite of software over the lifespan of a major revision than would be needed to fix issues introduced by the major evolution of a large number of packages over the course of a 5-7 year product cycle.

-----Original Message-----
From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Larry Vaden
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:22 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: [CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

Hello CentOS Community Members,

What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?

A similar problem (to BZ561299) was first reported five (5) years ago
on the isc.org mailing list.

Is there any support among the CentOS community for a REPO of current
vintage for such important functions as BIND et al?

That question is based on the presumption that time is taking us to a
more complete and correct implementation of the basic functions like
DNS.

IOW, is CentOS philosophy of tracking RH so nailed-to-the-wall that it
is blasphemy to propose a REPO of current editions of certain very
important functions?

kind regards/ldv

A quote from a long term mentor now at Internet2:

"It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches
for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in
fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at
Dr. Vaughn's place of employment."

===

Reported: 2010-02-03 05:32 EST by Duncan (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561299):

Additional info:

Works fine in Fedora 4,8,9 and 11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4
release 4 (Nahant Update 8) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.1
(Tikanga)

Fails in 5.4 and Fedora 10.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org