Upgrade RH 6.2/Bind 8.2.3 to RH 7.3/Bind 9.2.0

[Sam Pointer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

As far as I know BIND9 lives quite happily on OpenBSD; why not try
that instead. It's very secure and the default install is quite
"tight" (and therefore I suspect smaller than a stock RH Linux).

- -----Original Message-----
From: Me [mailto:reply_in at newsgroup.only]
Sent: 14 May 2002 23:48
To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade RH 6.2/Bind 8.2.3 to RH 7.3/Bind 9.2.0


Thanks. I looked at it today and even after stripping everything out
that I
thought I could, I was still about 50 MB short on disk space, so I
guess
it's time to look at some newer old computers. : ) I'm now thinking
about
simply starting from scratch instead of upgrading. Tomorrow I'm going
to try
deselecting absolutely every package except BIND and then let it
resolve the
missing dependencies and see how small that will make the install.
Can I
assume that my existing named.conf and zone records can simply be
copied to
the new system without major modifications?

> e.g., bind8 can be configured to allow multiple cname's on a label
> but bind9 doesn't allow it at all and there is nothing you can do

What do you mean by "label"? Multiple CNAMEs for one A record? Hope
not,
because that is precisely what I do have.

Thanks,

Ray

 "those who know me have no need of my name"
<not-a-real-address at usa.net>
wrote in message news:abncpb$fbvp$1 at isrv4.isc.org...
>
> <abn4hp$f94p$1 at isrv4.isc.org> divulged:
>
> >Just saw that the newest release of Red hat, v7.3, includes Bind
> >9.2.0. 
I've
> >got several old Pentium 75 computers with 400 MB hard drives
> >running Bind 8.2.3 that I would like to upgrade. These servers
> >don't do anything 
except
> >act as authoritative non-recursive nameservers for a handful of
> >domains. From the docs it looks like I just select Upgrade and the
> >RH installer upgrades only the installed packages.
>
> this part works as expected.  but, bind9 is different than bind8. 
> whether there are any differences which will affect you depends on
> what you 
expect,
> e.g., bind8 can be configured to allow multiple cname's on a label
> but bind9 doesn't allow it at all and there is nothing you can do
> (short of hacking the code) to allow it.
>
> i'd suggest that you copy your configuration to a test system, then
upgrade
> it and check the log files for problems -- most likely there will
> be none. 
>
> --
> bringing you boring signatures for 17 years
>
>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQCVAwUBPOJCM7ZuYukPoxS2AQFDpQQAlpIcgloNhDEcKbMUl3gRaR8dZ0NCcFdC
GJPKkxgV35CvlUnIdQrdh4cHAWL8x6S4tR8kOi7nOEbOuC12jI5eVFKgID/AGHke
fcfdnYd7XbPSNzwBZAR39aUhfxg8W6WU0pN4Ep8SHQw9qPf/WVEqLPQO9TDkYjA8
zkAwUpsdBV0=
=HPpE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


This email and any attachments are strictly confidential and are intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must
not disclose, forward, copy or take any action in reliance on this message
or its attachments. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender as soon as possible and delete it from your computer systems.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of HPD Software Limited or its affiliates.

 At present the integrity of email across the internet cannot be guaranteed
and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk.  All liability
is excluded to the extent permitted by law for any claims arising as a re-
sult of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to 
HPD Software Limited or its affiliates.