FAQ
I just had a customer's bind server lose all of it's local DNS
records. Yum updated the bind packages this morning at ~6am, and
replaced the original /etc/named.conf file, saving the old as
named.conf.rpmsave. This seems like the opposite of what it should
have done (i.e. save the new file as named.conf.rpmnew). There does
not appear to be any difference between the originally shipped conf
file and the new one, suggesting that the file should not have been
replaced at all. Just wanted to through this out there in hopes it
helps someone else before the phone starts ringing...

CentOS release 4.6 (Final)
Jul 09 05:59:25 Updated: bind-devel.i386 20:9.2.4-28.0.1.el4
Jul 09 05:59:29 Updated: bind-chroot.i386 20:9.2.4-28.0.1.el4

Chris

Search Discussions

  • Tru Huynh at Jul 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:42:12AM -0700, Chris Miller wrote:
    I just had a customer's bind server lose all of it's local DNS records.
    Yum updated the bind packages this morning at ~6am, and replaced the
    original /etc/named.conf file, saving the old as named.conf.rpmsave. This
    seems like the opposite of what it should have done (i.e. save the new
    file as named.conf.rpmnew).
    If you have the caching-nameserver package, it's the expected behaviour:

    /etc/named.conf is "owned" and labelled as "config file" for caching-nameserver.

    The regular bind/bind-chroot don't provide named.conf.
    You should not install the caching-nameserver package if you are
    indeed providing DNS services with bind...

    Tru
    --
    Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance)
    http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: not available
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 189 bytes
    Desc: not available
    Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080709/47c18ec3/attachment.bin
  • Chris Miller at Jul 10, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Tru Huynh wrote:
    On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:42:12AM -0700, Chris Miller wrote:
    I just had a customer's bind server lose all of it's local DNS records.
    Yum updated the bind packages this morning at ~6am, and replaced the
    original /etc/named.conf file, saving the old as named.conf.rpmsave. This
    seems like the opposite of what it should have done (i.e. save the new
    file as named.conf.rpmnew).
    If you have the caching-nameserver package, it's the expected behaviour:

    /etc/named.conf is "owned" and labelled as "config file" for caching-nameserver.

    The regular bind/bind-chroot don't provide named.conf.
    You should not install the caching-nameserver package if you are
    indeed providing DNS services with bind...
    Thanks! I wasn't aware of this package, and it was indeed at fault.
    Seems like the package should be named bind-caching-nameserver...

    Chris

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcentos @
categoriescentos
postedJul 9, '08 at 3:42p
activeJul 10, '08 at 7:16p
posts3
users2
websitecentos.org
irc#centos

2 users in discussion

Chris Miller: 2 posts Tru Huynh: 1 post

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase