On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Tom H <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM, David Sommerseth > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not going to argue that this could have been done better, I agree with you >> here. On the other hand, maybe *that* is one reason it takes time to get this >> issue resolved too? That Red Hat QE is working on improving the situation, >> adding needed regression tests and so on for this use case. I know I'm >> speculating now, but I also know that these guys really do their best to >> avoid >> painful experiences for users and customers. Unfortunately, they do mistakes >> - as we all do from time to time. > > Given the > https://git.centos.org/blobdiff/rpms!bind.git/d56ed2d3a2736a07a09c268f3b2607cca8f1b6ca/SOURCES!named-chroot.service > commit, there's probably a lot of hype in RH's QA marketing claims. > I'm not implying that there's no QA at all but, in this case, if there > was any, it sucked.
That's not a fix. It's a workaround. named-checkconf and named-checkzone can, and should be able to, correctly operate for a chroot'ed named. I wrote configuration testing Makefiles to do this way, way back in.... 2012? I'm not sure if I still have those anywhere.
