Bug... 4.x, 8.x ,9.x

[Danny Mayer]

At 12:52 AM 10/14/2004, Techie wrote:
>As it says in the readme1st.txt file in the zip distro of Bind 9.3, drop
>the bug rep's in here.
>
>Well here it goes.
>
>
>1) The installer provides an option to Start service after finishing
>install. Why? There are no config files done since they have to be built by
>hand so hy even provide the option. It seems redundant. INstead there
>should be a list on what files are required and what you need to add as
>basic values. Then it would be more Windows friendly.

When you are upgrading the version of BIND you already have the
configuration files and zones so it makes sense to be able to just
restart it when you have finished the install. In fact, if you are running
BIND when you start the install it will notice this and check that box
before you are presented with the options. BINDInstall is designed
to stop the service if it is running when it starts the install. It's not
at all redundant. We cannot possibly know what files are required
as it depends on what you want to do with it. Only named.conf
is required. Beyond that it depends on the contents of named.conf.


>2) Bind 4, 8 and 9 all have the same glitch in the following cases
>
>Run the installer that came with it.
>Click UNINSTALL Bind
>
>It does NOT remove the service registry values in Windows.

You MUST use the installer/uninstaller appropriate to that version
of BIND. The BIND 9 installer cannot uninstall a BIND 8 installation
and visa versa. I remember almost nothing about how BIND 4 is
installed on Windows.

>This in turn prevents any future re-installation of BIND on this machine
>without manually running RegClean, a no longer supported MS app, and then
>rebooting. It does not remove root dir for the files and logs allthough
>selected to do so.

The only requirement is to remove the registry keys required for
the service. BIND doesn't care about the other keys. The directory and
the files should never be removed as you may need them, particularly if
you are migrating to another version. Most users would be pretty upset
if the installer/uninstaller gratuitously removed files that they needed.

>Anyway, my two cents and hopefully you guys will add this to make it more
>windows friendly. After all only 5 - 10 % of all users who get in to this
>one way or another are on linux. If I were missing 95% of the market in my
>business, I'd be out of business pretty soon. Guess some luck and some
>skill comes into play. And yes I know windows is not the best server
>environment but hey, thats at least something I know.

You are just making it harder on yourself by installing obsolete versions.

Danny