BIND Woes A Second Thought

[Tim]

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 22:25 -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote:
> I hate to be pendantic but, if you will look at your previous postings
> you will see that you were replying to me. 

No idea why you've got your knickers in a twist about that.  The reply
was addressed to you, and if you're referring to other threads it really
is too much to expect someone else to remember every single thread when
there's about 200 messages a day being read.

> Obviously those previous posts did not impart enough information to
> solve the problem.

Obviously.  Perhaps you might try losing the attitude.  Perhaps you're
repeatedly asking the same questions hoping to get a different answer.

> That would be the obvious reason to post the question again prefaced
> with the fact that I had started from a virgin install.

Starting a new thread does make it harder to associate it with a prior
one.  If you were continuing on an older thread, but had changed some of
the circumstances (such as a fresh install), and wanted people to know
both of those facts, you shouldn't have started a new thread.

> It should be fairly obvious that I have at least one domain up and
> functional based on my e-mail address.  So although a total rookie to
> Linux I am not completely clueless.

Nothing was obvious, like that, in your thread.  People often use bogus
examples.  We couldn't possibly know what you've just alluded to.

> I am trying to leave the Dark Side (MicroShaft) due to this same type
> of attitude.

The one with the attitude has been you.  You've been given a lot of
help, and now your bitching about it.

> So just do me a favor, the next time I post a question, do not
> respond.

How about you shove your head back up where it belongs?  Here's a hint
on how mailing lists and news groups work:  Someone says something,
others join in and discuss.  You read what you want, you respond to what
you want to.  You're not forced to read nor reply to anything.  If
no-one else chimes in, it's a fair bet that you've been given the same
answer they would have given you, or nobody else has an answer to give
you.

> If I have offended anyone else on this e-mail chain I offer apologies
> in advance but a pet peeve of mine has just been stomped  on big time.

That's a piss-poor apology.

> If I had wanted this, I would have stayed over on the Dark Side!

Let's see what the hell you're bitching about, the prior message follows
(with the quote indicators, the unquoted comments were added with this
message):

Mike Dwiggins wrote:
>>> I am trying to set up a second server which is going to have Master 
>>> Zones and Slave Zones so must be a full nameserver not a caching-nameserver.

Tim:
>> It can be all three, at once...

So far, so good.  Mike's said what he wanted to do, but has mistakenly
believed that a master or slave server cannot also be a caching name
server.  This misbelief has been corrected.  Tough if Mike doesn't like
that, but it's a fact.

Why bring it up?  Because it means fighting against something (avoiding
a caching name server configuration) when it's not needed.  The name
server can be a caching one, you don't need to avoid it.  It doesn't
have to be one.  You can just use what you've got.  i.e. Don't chase a
red herring while trying to work out your problem, you're just wasting
your time.

>>> I did a complete virgin install of FC 6 and then did a
>>> yum install bind*
>>>
>>> I then went into /etc looking for named.conf,  all I could find was a 
>>> caching-nameserver.conf.
>>>
>>> The caching-nameserver.conf contained a comment line that said to use 
>>> system-config-bind to create a named.conf.
>>>
>>> A quick whatis system-config shows that there is no system-config-bind 
>>> command in FC 6.

Again, no problem.  Mike's said what he's done, defined a problem, and
we can use it to provide some answers.  Here's some:

>> Install it, as well...  Or just make up your own named.conf file, by
>> hand, and have it "include" the other config file.

There's the answer.  Install what wasn't installed, additionally
(system-config-bind).  *If* you want to.  Or create what was needed,
without installing anything else (the named.conf file, and one way to go
about doing it).  I could forsee further questions about exactly how to
create that named.conf file, if the poster didn't try experimenting.
But nothing to complain about that reply, unless you're a moron. 

>> By the way, they're actually in /var/named/chroot/etc/ not just /etc/.
>> The /etc/ directory just has symlinks pointing to the files in the
>> chroot location.

Additional information, just in case the poster puts something where
they expect it to be (/etc), rather than where BIND expect it (in the
chroot /etc).  Since Mike hasn't managed to get it working yet, it must
be presumed that a few hints here and there over common stumbling blocks
might be needed.  That was a common one.  Still nothing to complain
about, unless you're an idiot.

>> If you go back through the list archive, you'll see some postings I've
>> made about this, this month.  They're in threads about BIND, or name
>> server.  The archive link is the URI below, in the list signature.  That
>> URI is not just for unsubscribing.

More additional information, regarding configuring slave and master
servers, just in case it helps to go back through previously provided
information on this subject.  Again, nothing to complain about unless
you're an idiot.

So, Mike...  Are you a complete idiot, or do you only do it part time?

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.