> From a distribution point of view, it makes no sense to keep small chroot > copies of the OS itself for various kinds of applications. Named I believe > laready lost its chroot as well. > > There were various problems with the chroot. For one, there is the issue of > updated DNSSEC keys (via dnssec-keys and autotrust). Then there is the issue > of package updates and the --bind mounts not getting unmounted in time for > the package to do an update without causing problems in the scriptlets. > > And last, with the coming of instant cheap VM's for a single purpose (eg > nameserver) the concept of chroot's is becoming rather useless. The only > value content of a VM running a nameserver is within the chroot itself.
Paul, I don't (much) care about using the chroot. I do care about being forced to run SELinux. kind regards, Ray _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
