On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Warren Kumari wrote:
After having tried to use the distribution supplied packages (for multiple
distributions) my opinion is that building from source is the right answer for
BIND. The distributions lag more than I'm comfortable with, and BIND builds
cleanly from source w
fakessh @ writes:
> I recompile the source rpm fedora core 14 bind 9.7.3 to EL4 and EL5
> with koji see my blog for explanations
>
> http://fakessh.eu/2011/03/10/bind-9-7-3-sur-centos-5-5-depuis-rpm-source-fecora-14/
Yep, that works fine, and even on RHEL3.
_
I recompile the source rpm fedora core 14 bind 9.7.3 to EL4 and EL5
with koji see my blog for explanations
http://fakessh.eu/2011/03/10/bind-9-7-3-sur-centos-5-5-depuis-rpm-source-fecora-14/
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 09:45 -0400, Mike Diggins a écrit :
> I'm about to transition my name servers fr
So, how many servers are you talking about?
After having tried to use the distribution supplied packages (for multiple
distributions) my opinion is that building from source is the right answer for
BIND. The distributions lag more than I'm comfortable with, and BIND builds
cleanly from source w
If these are new servers that are only for BIND I'd suggest going with
RHEL6 rather than 5.6 - RHEL releases have very long life cycle. When
I get a spare moment I intend to update our servers to RHEL6.
We use the RHEL5 BIND package for the reasons you give. However, the
way RedHat does things
For new deployments, I would likely choose RHEL6 over RHEL5; unless you
have a compelling reason to run RHEL5. RHEL6 includes BIND 9.7.0. You
mention that you would like to keep your DNS boxes "appliance" like. If
this is the case, rolling out source code and compiling on each box may
not be the
6 matches
Mail list logo
