On 4/27/19 9:22 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 4/27/19 5:33 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 27 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Why is 9.12+ now suddenly so grumpy about who owns the files? Is this a recent
fix to reduce the attack surface on files owned by root?
Pretty sure. I thought it was men
Hi,
I can only second that. The default cc on OpenBSD comes from Precambrian era,
so you’ll need to use at least gcc >= 4.8 or clang to fullfill the build
requirements - see PLATFORMS.md.
We should probably asd a section on OpenBSD to the file and/or better checks to
configure, but I always th
On 4/27/19 5:33 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Why is 9.12+ now suddenly so grumpy about who owns the files? Is this a
>> recent fix to reduce the attack surface on files owned by root?
>
> Pretty sure. I thought it was mentioned in the 9.12 release notes,
In article ,
Gawan Re wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a bind server with recursion disabled.
So this should be an authoritative-only nameserver, not a resolving
nameserver.
> One of the subzone is delegated to external name servers for which we are
> not authoritative. The records inside this sub
On 4/26/19 1:14 PM, Gawan Re wrote:
Any help will be appreciated.
It's my understanding that recursion is required to answer any queries
not contained within local authoritative data.
Can you slave the delegated zone off of the server it's delegated to?
That would make your server have an a
I've tried gcc (a really old 4.2.1) first, then cc (clang 7.0.1) , and
finally egcc (gcc 8.3.0 package) . All fail on the same module/includes.
This does not appear to be a "compiler-ism" but rather an environmental
issue.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 3:55 PM paranoid sysadmin <
paranoid.schizophreni..
On 27 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Why is 9.12+ now suddenly so grumpy about who owns the files? Is this a
> recent fix to reduce the attack surface on files owned by root?
Pretty sure. I thought it was mentioned in the 9.12 release notes, but now I
can't find it.
--
One of the
On 4/27/19 3:33 PM, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On 27/04/2019 21:52, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>> Running: FreeBSD 11.2-STABLE #0 r345904
>>
>> Bind 9.11 works fine. If I attempt to install 9.12 or greater, the
>> installation succeeds but any attempt to start the daemon fails silently.
>>
Hello,
I'm also an Openbsd user
I see you used CC can you try with GCC ?
I hope that will help
Le samedi 27 avril 2019 à 22:56:25 UTC+2, paranoid sysadmin
a écrit :
I have begun work on upgrading a group of OpenBSD boxes that are used at a
bunch of small sites as a "network services"
I have begun work on upgrading a group of OpenBSD boxes that are used at a
bunch of small sites as a "network services" processor and gateway.. The
existing boxes are mostly running some version of 9.12, though one is
running a 9.11.Aside from the usual "version-ites" problems, this has been
a larg
On 27/04/2019 21:52, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Hi Tim,
> Running: FreeBSD 11.2-STABLE #0 r345904
>
> Bind 9.11 works fine. If I attempt to install 9.12 or greater, the
> installation succeeds but any attempt to start the daemon fails silently.
> Output of 'sh -x /usr/local/rc.d/named start' follows
Running: FreeBSD 11.2-STABLE #0 r345904
Bind 9.11 works fine. If I attempt to install 9.12 or greater, the
installation succeeds but any attempt to start the daemon fails silently.
Output of 'sh -x /usr/local/rc.d/named start' follows below.
Any thoughts or pointers would be deeply appreciated.
>> I think there must be something wrong with the log message. It
>> seems excessive to log this message about once per query,
>> especially since it seems to (misleadingly?) indicate an error
>> condition? I'm not intimate enough with the code to suggest what
>> the exact problem is, though.
>>
13 matches
Mail list logo
