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