On 07/13/2011 12:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 7/13/2011 1:50 PM, John Hinton wrote: >> >>>> But my use cases are related to a prodduction environment, >>>> maintaining several hundred zone files, with lots of adds, >>>> changes, and deletes. The s-c-bind GUI tool was useless, >>>> compared to TUI edits (certain legacy systems) and scripts to >>>> do the backups, accuracy audit, and creation of all files >>>> including the PTR record files >>> So, aren't computer programs supposed to be able to deal with >>> complicated cases, or just not free computer programs? Or is the input >>> syntax just too weird? While s-c-bind may not have been the right >>> answer, it just seems odd as a missing piece in the distribution and >>> epel-provided packages. Almost as odd as not having a network-aware >>> authentication mechanism working as a server out of the box on your >>> initial install - as though it would be unusual to have more than one >>> computer and want those initial users to be able to log into the others >>> you'd add later. >>> >> I would have to guess that UpStream decided it was not to be. They most >> likely had very good reasons for this. I 'barely' looked at it as it >> could not do what I need to do and that was some years back. Is/Was it >> capable of doing IPV6? That would be a good reason to put it to bed... >> given IPV6 will likely become widespread during the lifespan of CentOS >> 6. Various SPF/SenderID/DomainKeys things also ride on bind these days. >> It could be that UpStream decided that was a good reason to put it to >> bed? Either way, CentOS is a nearly exact clone of UpStream, so really >> you need to go complain at UpStream, not on this list. CentOS has >> exactly matched their goal of providing the same packages available >> under UpStream. There is no point to complaining here. > > It's not so much a complaint and certainly not directed at CentOS, as > pointing out a curious situation that pretty much everyone has to work > around. Russ may be of the opinion that everyone should memorize > bazillion-page books of details about each quirky service or hire > someone who did, but I think the point of using computers should be to > make things easier. And I'm surprised that there isn't a common tool to > make it easy at least in the usual 3rd party repos. > Yes, certainly NOT a complaint with CentOS. system-config-bind was a very useful too for us. It wasn't perfect and there were a few features it could have benefited from, but it did a good enough job for we needed it to do. I had been thinking recently that we needed to start looking for a different way to manage the DNS servers on our gateways, and had even begun to build initial bind configuration for production systems into the configuration scripts. I guess I am unhappy because someone else made the decision about when to stop using system-config-bind for me :-) And for no good reason that I can figure.