On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Tom H <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM, David Sommerseth
> <[log in to unmask]> 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.