Hi,
Super interesting dialogue following this issue. Nice to see how this is
picked up by the NSD team.
The problem discussed in this thread makes me feel that the debian NSD
package may not receive as much attention as it perhaps should...?
What is consensus here: simpy "apt install nsd" or look into compiling
from source? (like for example is recommended in the case of samba ADDC)
MJ
On 5/28/20 2:34 AM, Simon Deziel via nsd-users wrote:
On 2020-05-27 3:18 p.m., Anand Buddhdev via nsd-users wrote:
On 27/05/2020 19:02, Simon Deziel wrote:
As for the failed unlinking of the pidfile, this is harmless and should
not be logged as a warning. It may already be fixed in newer
releases as
it was done with Unbound already.
PID files are so passé! They are irrelevant on systems where daemons are
run under supervisors. I would highly recommend setting "pidfile" to ""
in nsd.conf. This prevents creation of a PID file. Systemd already knows
the PID of the NSD process, and can signal it directly.
Would it make sense to simply ignore the pidfile directive when running
through systemd?
No. I don't like it when software silently does things. Instead, when
package maintainers build NSD for systems with systemd, they should pass
the --with-pidfile="" option to the configure script, so that by
default, NSD doesn't create PID files.
I like the idea. Since Debian wants to preserve compatibility with both
systemd and init, I proposed a slightly different fix to Debian for nsd
[1] and unbound [2]. Thanks!
Regards,
Simon
1: https://salsa.debian.org/dns-team/nsd/-/merge_requests/4
2: https://salsa.debian.org/dns-team/unbound/-/merge_requests/9
_______________________________________________
nsd-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/nsd-users
_______________________________________________
nsd-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/nsd-users
