Re: named or not?

[Tomislav Vujec <tvujec redhat com>]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 14:38 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> Both of them should be started by init during boot.  I think starting it
> through this mechanism is just incorrect.

Can you elaborate on this? From my point of view, named can either be
controlled through dbus, or it can be a standalone DNS service. If it is
standalone, it should be started from init. However, if its main purpose
is to serve as a name service under the control of NM, I would expect
that it gets started by it.

Further more, bind as a package in most distributions doesn't currently,
and it shouldn't in the future install with the init script enabled for
any run level, if for nothing else, then for the security purpose.
Ability to start named as well as dhcdbd as a dbus service, when
required, simplifies the installation procedure. We definitely want NM
to "just work", and the only alternative would be to enable dhcdbd and
named on random run levels, which is just plain wrong.

Finally, I don't think that the configuration where bind runs as a full
featured DNS server, and NM controls the network is realistic. However,
I would still put a check for the non dbus enabled running named before
spawning another instance through dbus.

Regards,
-- 
Tomislav Vujec                           Manager, Client Development
Red Hat GmbH    Otto-Hahn-Straße 20    Germany 85609 München-Dornach
Tel +49 89 205071 212  Fax +49 89 205071 111  Cell. +49 172 623 1214
Skype/AIM/Yahoo/IRC: tvujec  ICQ: 4508361     http://www.redhat.com/