trigger point for new bug

michoski michoski at
Wed Nov 16 22:45:03 UTC 2011

On 11/16/11 2:35 PM, "Michael McNally" <mcnally at> wrote:
> On 11/16/11 1:22 PM, michoski wrote:
>> Short time ago I grabbed the latest tarball from your download site, and
>> generated internal packages.  I could have sworn that was 9.8.1-P4 (our
>> internal packages still have the P4, and Google finds some hits):
> Perhaps it was 9.8.0-P4?  Many of our version names bear a very close
> resemblance to one another.

Getting a clue...

> No.  You can see all versions of ISC BIND 9 that we have released,
> going back to 9.0.0 in 2004, at
> There has never (yet) been a 9.8.1-P4 released by ISC.

Thanks for the link.

> However, the rpm names you are seeing are assigned by another
> entity, probably the maintainer of whatever repository you are
> using (e.g. RedHat.)  Repository maintainers have been known
> to use version numbers similar, but not identical, to those
> assigned by ISC.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the annoyance of tracking version numbers across
vendor repos.  :-(

However, we don't actually use Red Hat's packages in this case, our RelEng
team builds using whatever tarball link I send them...and I always download
from to be safe.

So...  Since I've been playing with 9.8.x daily for the past few months, I
must have typoed something when asking "9.8.0-P4" to be upgraded awhile back
and ended up with this "9.8.1-P4" monstrosity.

>> No worries, I will move to P1 given today's date on the tarball.  :-)
> That's our recommendation.

Thanks for additional clarification, and sorry for the noise.  Those Google
results for 9.8.1-P4 really threw me -- more proof it can't be trusted.  ;-)

By nature, men are nearly alike;
by practice, they get to be wide apart.
        -- Confucius

More information about the bind-users mailing list