[Centos] bind and 3.4
Lance Davis
lance at uklinux.netWed Jan 12 18:12:23 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [Centos] bind and 3.4
- Next message: [Centos] bind and 3.4
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Michael Jennings wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 January 2005, at 17:19:03 (+0000), > Lance Davis wrote: > > > I agree totally - but disagree that an 'upgrade' should trash files > > that you have edited, and remove your configuration just because you > > have something installed that you shouldnt. > > Nobody's files got "trashed." They were renamed for backup purposes. > > Think about it: If you're running a cache-only nameserver, there's > nothing you could or should reasonably do to named.conf or any of the > /var/named/* files. RedHat wants to make sure that the old-and-busted > cache data is replaced by the new-hotness cache data, so they backup > your old stuff and install their new stuff. This is a perfectly sane, > reasonable, and expected course of action. Yes - but the people who have edited the files are not running cache-only nameservers - they have mistakenly got that rpm installed and then edited their stuff. If they were running cache-only nameservers then there would not be a problem. Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.
- Previous message: [Centos] bind and 3.4
- Next message: [Centos] bind and 3.4
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list