From RHEL to CentOS BIND 9

[isplist at logicore.net]

> Agreed.  They should write the code to the consumer's needs.

OS is going to suffer if we don't make it easier to use. That's the bottom 
line. I'm sick of finding 100% MS houses and I do all that I can to switch 
them over to Linux. I have my hands on more technologies than most people get 
to see so don't have the luxury of becoming n expert at everything that I 
touch. I do however want to be able to count on the installers to get it right 
so that I and my Linux/OS preaching don't end up looking ridiculous while the 
MS guy's snicker at my problems.

> ./configure; make; make install; {create configuration}; {run}
> continues to work fine for many people, making few "too nervous to use it".

That was how I did it the first time. I built two machines, got the source, 
worked through the deps and got them compiled but because of the SELinux 
issue, I was not able to resolve the problem. I decided to go RPM so that the 
next person to take over would only have to yum update to stay up to date for 
a while and ended up with countless new nightmares. 

I can't believe I had to go change permissions on directories after installing 
such a mature product???
 
> You have run into an issue that is really outside the scope of BIND and
> more in the scope of, as you noted, your installer package (RPM) that is

Sort of but not really. I installed bind when I installed the server. I then 
did an update and ended up with bind.chroot. I didn't even think about the 
fact that the original was not chroot. So I ended up with weird configurations 
that showed both non and chroot version configurations. 

I'm not sure that this is or is not a bind issue, that should be taken up with 
someone else I guess.

> thread (and is, I'm sure, still reading), I'm not aware of anyone on the
> list that actually creates/supports the RPMs.

I know it's not cool to use RPM's but again, it's great for folks who don't 
have a lot of time, are trying to sell Linux as the solution so just want 
something that'll work without having to become a guru at installing the 
service, DNS in this case.
 
> To help advance the open source agenda as you mentioned in other posts,
> you should contact your operating system vendor and/or RPM supplier and
> voice your concerns and provide input regarding the RPMs that you are
> having trouble with.

Is there anyone in this list who might want to make notes of everything I've 
had happen and then contact the right folks? 
 
> If you are able to put together a good SELinux FAQ, I'll be more than
> happy to make sure that it makes it into the ISC FAQ to which you were
> pointed earlier.

Sure, it's short. Leave it OFF for default OS installations :).
I don't know but really, how hard would it have been for named to pop up a 
notice that perhaps SELinux was enabled? That seems to be an RPM/packaging 
issue. 

All I know is that I still have a secondary to get up now. I hope it'll be 
straight forward. Someone posted some good notes, I hope it'll go that easy 
:).

Mike