On 18/03/2016 1:24 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> 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.

The above quoted link was from the commit by RH that broke the check.

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897