[CentOS] Beware - Yum 3.5 to 3.6 upgrade replaces named.conf

[Maciej Żenczykowski]

the caching-nameserver package which is the root of the problem should 
perhaps better be called 'only-caching-nameserver-and-nothing-else'.  You 
install it if you don't feel like configuring anything and want a local 
caching nameserver on a desktop.

If you want to configure a server with DNS, then you DO  NOT install 
caching-nameserver, instead you setup bind by hand (or with a different 
program GUI whatever) and you can configure it to host some zones and to 
query others from the internet and to reply to some queries from local 
hosts (local LAN) recursively and to only reply to hosted zone queries 
from non-local hosts (rest of the Internet). Etc.  IE. YOU DO NOT NEED THE 
CACHING-NAMESERVER PACKAGE TO HAVE A CACHING NAMESERVER.  The package is 
only meant to simplify life on normal desktops.

Besides you shouldn't be running bind anyway... DJBDNS/TINYDNS/DNSCACHE 
are much better anyway (although a little harder to setup in the first 
place, once done they run and run and run like duracel or the energizer 
bunny with no problems  whatsoever).

Cheers,
MaZe.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Michael Rock wrote:

> Thanks Jim but you already established that in the
> links you posted.  I was asking him why he writes
> never never put both caching and bind on the same box.
>
> I posted my configuration below so it just seems like
> resource and expense overkill to setup a separate box
> just for DNS queries, rather than make use of the two
> bind servers.
>
> --- Jim Perrin <jperrin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/05, Michael Rock <mikerocks65 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok guys ... this is ONLY an issue IF you have
>>>> caching-nameserver AND
>>>> bind installed ... and if you used the
>> named.conf
>>>> from caching-
>>>> nameserver.
>>>>
>>>> RH says to NOT install caching-nameserver and a
>> real
>>>> name server on the
>>>> same machine ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse my ignorance on this subject, been looking
>> for
>>> a link that explains the policy and why?  Right
>> now I
>>> have primary and secondary name servers hosting
>> many
>>> domains and web server applications that need to
>>> resolve DNS from these servers.  Then I have a
>> handful
>>> of workstations that use these servers for regular
>> DNS
>>> queries.
>>>
>>> This will be significant work/expense and to find
>>> space for it just to separate the caching name
>> server
>>> to a separate box just so the stations can have
>> DNS
>>> queries.
>>>
>>> Been doing it this way for years without a
>> problem, so
>>> any info you can pass on.
>>>
>>
>> Best documentation I can find is from one a
>> redhatter who closed one
>> of the caching-nameserver issues as not-a-bug. his
>> explanation follows
>> thusly:
>>
>>
>> This is not an issue with the bind-* package, but
>> with the
>> caching-nameserver package.
>>
>> No bind-* package supplies any named configuration
>> files,
>> unless none exist on the system, when only
>> rndc.conf, rndc.key,
>> and the bare minimum named.conf sufficient to allow
>> named to
>> run are installed.
>>
>> When you install the 'caching-nameserver' package,
>> which consists
>> entirely of the named configuration files, you are
>> asking for
>> a caching-nameserver named configuration to be
>> installed.
>>
>> If you want to customize your named configuration
>> files, and run
>> something other / more than a caching-only
>> nameserver, uninstall
>> the caching-nameserver package.
>>
>> Unless caching-nameserver replaces any existing
>> named configuration
>> files on installation / upgrade, there would be no
>> way of guaranteeing
>> after installation that a caching-nameserver was in
>> place afterwards,
>> and no way of upgrading these configuration files.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Perrin
>> System Architect - UIT
>> Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>