Lance Davis wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Michael Jennings wrote: > > > >>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 > > Ah... no, that didn't happen here. The only machine that was hit by this "user error"/BUG was one that I had built from the Centos 3.3 ISO disks from scratch. The machines that I had upgraded from RH 9 did NOT have this problem. All the upgraded machines are running Webmin/Usermin/Vitrualmin and have non-caching nameservers running. If I had paid more attention to the installation and not specified the "Caching Nameserver" then I would not have seen this "problem". While I'd like to blame someone else, it was my mistake that caused the problems here. The machine that I built from scratch is the master nameserver for everything else...