[34285] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pim van Riezen)
Fri Feb 2 06:52:30 2001
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:48:50 +0100
From: Pim van Riezen <pi@vuurwerk.nl>
To: North America Network Operators Group Mailing List <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010202042232.9DCAE8B@proven.weird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0102021243130.115762-100000@jones.lab.madscience.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> So far as I saw 8.2.2-P7 logged all of these errors and so could have
> given you ample time to fix up all of the problems just like it did for
> me.
In an ideal world, I agree with you. The base of all of this discussion
was how it can be that so many people take a while upgrading bind. I think
the situation I ran into is a realistic real world scenario. Understaffed
organizations will run into their own walls pretty easily when trying to
tackle the upgrade.
> [snip serving borken zones is bad]
I am near to agreeing with you if it were about not picking up a
zone-change when the zonefile has turned bogus. However, the effect of a
zone no longer being authoritative on the primary is not really what I'd
define as fun either :).
> Unfortunately BIND has never come with the equivalent of a GNU "NEWS"
> file to mention explicitly all of the user-visible differences and with
> all new releases it sometimes a bit of an adventure to discover all the
> new features and any incompatibilities.
Voila, I think that this is what my problem was. Like I said, the
information _was_ out there, it was just not intuitively available. So the
upgrade will scare some people off, if they don't manage to find it.
Cheers,
Pi
