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, 04:52 PM
Gordon Messmer
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On 02/02/2011 09:22 AM, 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?

Directives in the configuration files have changed. Users of RHEL
expect to be able to update their systems without anything breaking.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:02 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should
> be in 5.6 soon ?

Karanbir,

WIth a lot of due respect, no, not exactly, since 9.7.0-P2 (if I'm
reading it correctly) was released almost a year ago by isc.org.

I was thinking more along the lines of /isc/bind9/9.7.2-P3/, released
2 months ago.

Is there that much distrust of the current output of leading authors
that we need to "wait a long while"?

kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:10 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On 02/02/2011 06:02 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> I was thinking more along the lines of /isc/bind9/9.7.2-P3/, released
> 2 months ago.

If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
you were to build it and run it yourself.

>
> Is there that much distrust of the current output of leading authors
> that we need to "wait a long while"?

absolutely. Because I dont trust the authors of component XX to be
working on every other component also released that is impacted either
upstream or downstream in an app stack. Its the reason why policy and
site testing happens.

Expand that to cover the entire component base of whats in the distro
and then see how that would fail so spectacularly. If you want a very
small taste of what it can be, I'd suggest running rawhide with nightly
yum upgrades. Then try to scale that to multiple machines working with
different app stacks.

The moment your focus shifts from delivering a service to running code,
its game over in the user world. And I do honestly feel that the
stabilisation and the expected long life of a nearly -guaranteed-
abi/api compliant model in the *EL world makes it a lot easier to retain
focus on the service delivery angle.[1]

- KB

[1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A
lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on
offer in C5.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:14 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On 02/02/2011 06:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
> you were to build it and run it yourself.
>

btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus repo would be a
great place to host such a package

One of the best advantages of CentOS is that we're not tied down to the
EL codebase in any repo outside the [os] and [updates]

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:18 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> [1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A
> lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on
> offer in C5.

I agree with you 100%+.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:40 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 06:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
>> you were to build it and run it yourself.
>>
>
> btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus repo would be a
> great place to host such a package
>
> One of the best advantages of CentOS is that we're not tied down to the
> EL codebase in any repo outside the [os] and [updates]

Your approach is a superior approach to others advocating "roll your
own" because if for no other reason most folks' skill sets can not be
compared to those who "do this every day" vs. once a release for the
important stuff like BIND et al.

In short, not enough GOOD GDP/GNP results from "roll your own."
"Rolling your own" is "working harder, not smarter."

As far as "providing current services" e.g., I can't recall how long
it has been since I attended the first ISC meeting at NANOG to discuss
DNSSEC and yet it would surely be interesting to determine how many of
the world's DNS servers remain open to exploits solved years ago.

Along those lines, I'll let
<http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.7.2-P3/RELEASE-NOTES-BIND-9.7.2-P3.html>
speak for itself.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:41 PM
Kwan Lowe
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Larry Vaden <vaden@texoma.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>>
>> you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should
>> be in 5.6 soon ?
>
> Karanbir,
>
> WIth a lot of due respect, no, not exactly, since 9.7.0-P2 (if I'm
> reading it correctly) was released almost a year ago by isc.org.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of /isc/bind9/9.7.2-P3/, released
> 2 months ago.
>
> Is there that much distrust of the current output of leading authors
> that we need to "wait a long while"?
>
> kind regards/ldv

I appreciate the long roadmap and release schedule.

At my work we need to do two to three year forecasts. Budgets may
allow infrastructure updates every three or four years. If upgrading
to a newer package means breaking backwards compatibility (i.e., it's
an upgrade versus an update), we cannot associate the work and
resources to a maintenance budget and may need to find other sources
of funding.

That's the business case...

On the technical side, for every application we deploy we need to go
through an entire certification process. So updating bind does not
mean that we run a few dig queries against the new server, but doing a
complete regression test against all applications that rely on bind.
This would include revenue generating websites, authentication
mechanisms, SSL, NFS mappings, and other apps that require name
resolution (and it's surprising how many apps need more than just
name/ip).

A few months ago there was an Active Directory update. It had
repercussions for a CIFS service running on a human resources server.
This affected payroll processing. Now we need to find resources to
upgrade that application and we cannot use the same budget.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 07:47 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus repo would be a
> great place to host such a package
>
> One of the best advantages of CentOS is that we're not tied down to the
> EL codebase in any repo outside the [os] and [updates]

Is one expected to support all of the archs?

If not, which set is the minimum to be considered for contribution?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-03-2011, 04:36 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Kwan Lowe <kwan.lowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate the long roadmap and release schedule.
>
> At my work we need to do two to three year forecasts. Budgets may
> allow infrastructure updates every three or four years.

As a rural ISP investing budget dollars in wireless infrastructure to
serve our formerly dialup customers, we run it until it breaks. Nukes
and repaves have never been necessary.

Our credit card processing system may soon be 10 years old:

Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla)
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jun 21 2001 initrd

The compatibility of the systems over a decade+ has been truly amazing.

Speaking budget, I noted the other day in a discussion with a mentor
at Internet2.edu that you can now spend $8600 on RH, and, he does,
regularly.

That's the rough equivalent of 100 wireless CPEs for 100 new
customers, which generate about $3000/month of top line revenue.

I'm impressed that, e.g., /etc/sysconfig/iptables has been in the same
place for over a decade, even absent an industry-wide agreed upon file
layout for Linux (which would have been a big plus IMHO); in fact,
our backup NMC runs Ubuntu 10.10 just so my 64 year old neurons are
challenged weekly with "where did they put that?"

IMHO, a nice addition to www.centos.org would be an "About Us" page
(Google 'site:www.centos.org "about us"' comes up more or less empty
of said).

Long live CentOS, Karanbir, Tru, et al!!! More modest souls would be
far too difficult to find.

kind regards/ldv

Larry Vaden, CoFounder
Internet Texoma, Inc.
Serving Rural Texomaland Since 1995
We Care About Your Connection!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> [1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A
> lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on
> offer in C5.

Karabir,

Should the effort to build community support for an auxiliary repo of
current release RPMs be moved to another list?

Check out <http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=wordpress&search_on=smart&distro=0&arch=3 2-bit&exact=0>,
e.g.

Or, if you are interested in more fundamental Internet functions that
must be as close to complete and correct, see

<http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=bind&search_on=smart&distro=0&arch=32-bit&exact=0>.

kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 AM.

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