Larry Vaden
2011-Feb-02 17:22 UTC
[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.
Karanbir Singh
2011-Feb-02 17:22 UTC
[CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
On 02/02/2011 05:22 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:> What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient > code base for such important programs as BIND et al?Did you ask them ? what did they say ?> Is there any support among the CentOS community for a REPO of current > vintage for such important functions as BIND et al?you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should be in 5.6 soon ? - KB
David Brian Chait
2011-Feb-02 17:28 UTC
[CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
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 at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at 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 at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Gordon Messmer
2011-Feb-02 17:52 UTC
[CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
On 02/02/2011 09:22 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:> What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient > code base for such important programs as BIND et al?Directives in the configuration files have changed. Users of RHEL expect to be able to update their systems without anything breaking.
Robert Heller
2011-Feb-02 18:41 UTC
[CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:22:12 -0600 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote:> > 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?The rpmforge repo has more current releases of some packages. I don't know is bind is one of them. There is also rpmfusion with newer versions as well. The centosplus repo has newer versions of some packages. Again I don't know if bind is one of them. Nothing is really stopping you from fetching the Fedora src RPMs and rebuilding them under CentOS. Something like bind would probably build cleanly with little or no messing with the spec file or patching the code, etc., since it probably does not depend on a complex collection of packages (eg like GTK+ or something like that).> > 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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller at deepsoft.com Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments