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