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, 05:13 PM
Alan Hodgson
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

On February 2, 2011 10:02:03 am Larry Vaden wrote:
> Is there that much distrust of the current output of leading authors
> that we need to "wait a long while"?

You don't need to wait at all. Build your own packages or install from source.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-02-2011, 05:41 PM
Robert Heller
 
Default Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?

At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:22:12 -0600 CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org> wrote:

>
> 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?

The rpmforge repo has more current releases of some packages. I don't
know is bind is one of them. There is also rpmfusion with newer
versions as well.

The centosplus repo has newer versions of some packages. Again I don't
know if bind is one of them.

Nothing is really stopping you from fetching the Fedora src RPMs and
rebuilding them under CentOS. Something like bind would probably build
cleanly with little or no messing with the spec file or patching the
code, etc., since it probably does not depend on a complex collection of
packages (eg like GTK+ or something like that).

>
> 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
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments



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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.

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