Changes to named

[Neal D. Becker]

On Thursday 06 November 2003 07:51 am, Douglas Furlong wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:39, Neal D. Becker wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 November 2003 09:20 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > On Nov  5, 2003, "Neal D. Becker" <nbecker at hns.com> wrote:
> > > > I see in release notes that the permissions/ownerships of named files
> > > > have changed.  Is it OK to install (clean), then restore my
> > > > backed-up /var/lib/named and /etc/named.conf, or will I have to
> > > > change ownerships/permissions?
> > >
> > > Err...  Release Notes anyone?
> > >
> > >      o The BIND nameserver has had its security tightened. The
> > > /var/named/ directory is no longer owned by "named", but rather by
> > > "root". Slave zone files should now be stored in the new
> > > /var/named/slaves/ directory, which is owned by "named". In addition, a
> > > new bind-chroot package makes it possible to run the named daemon in a
> > > chroot() "jail" (located in /var/named/chroot/) for greater security.
> >
> > Thanks, but I already read the release notes.  My question is, if I
> > simply restore my old named setup, overwriting the new
> > permissions/ownerships with the old ones, will named break?
>
> Hi Alexandre.
>
> I am guessing that this will probably prevent bind from starting.
>
> However, as it is only an ownership change (it would appear), it should
> be fairly easy to run chown -R on the required directory, affecting all
> the files, and then again, one level lower on the slaves directory.
>
> However it would appear, if you have slaves set up, you will also have
> to alter the named.conf file so that the slaves files are placed in the
> right directory.
>

What is the upgrade procedure for RH9 to fedora on a system which is named 
master?  Slave?  Will upgrade fix everything automatically? (This is an 
important question)