hi stephen,
you were right, i have previously not understand that.
while i'm sure the view came from the installation, the missing of the
view now shows the bug has been already fixed.
thanks again,
alex
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, alex bodnaru said:
>
>>hi stephen,
>>
>>thanks for your prompt answer.
>>
>>in the past, bind9 used to log a warning about the named.conf zones
>>being not in views, while i defined other zone files within views in
>>named.conf.local, which is included in named.conf.
>>
>>recently, bind9 was shipping with all the zones in named.conf included
>>in view "original", probably to overcome that warning.
>>the "include named.conf.local" statement is outside view "original"
>>{...};, so my views would, without changing named.conf, be not nested
>>within view "original".
>>i have nevertheless changed this to have nested views, as you said, but
>>the server fails to even load. the only possible way for it to load
>>would be to have the include statement within view "original", but
>>refrain from containing view or logging statements in the local file,
>>which would unnecessarily limit it's functionality.
>>
>>as an obeying user, i have migrated only named.conf.local from a running
>>server, but failed to work on a newer system. hence the problem gravity.
>>
>>my fix preserves the former situation, with the given warning, but lets
>>the system run properly.
>
>
> I think you have missed what I was saying. The bind9 debian packages do
> not ship with a view defined. If you have a view named original, then
> you or another admin have defined it. That was my only point. As I am
> not the maintainer for bind, I have forwarded your previous mail to the
> bug report log, and am copying it on my reply to you. Please follow up
> to there as well.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
