[ On Saturday, October 13, 2001 at 10:53:36 (+1000), Luke Mewburn wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/distrib/sets/lists/base
>
> Acting as if the change from "/var/named" to "/var/chroot/named" was
> something thats affected a great number of users (of our release
> software) is disingenious.

I didn't say it affected a whole lot of people, nor did I claim it was
a variance from past practice in any existing release.  Why can't you
take something like this at face value?

> As we're considering making it easier to chroot many system
> applications, it was felt (after discussion with a few people) that
> a seperate hierarchy for chroot-ed applications makes sense, in
> case the end-user needs configuration flexibility with items such
> as separate mount point options for the chroot-ed cages. That's
> why "/var/chroot/<user>" was chosen.

I didn't argue anything about how the chroot setup should be organized.

I wrote only of how it best made sense for the default non-chroot
configuration.

> In hindsight, "/var/named"
> set a bad precedent for polluting /var with chroot cages.

That may be so for chroot areas, but it's got nothing whatsoever to do
with non-chroot default behaviour.

Personally I'd like to see all this chroot stuff built as a separate
add-on package.  It's a lot of unnecessary complication if it's not
used, and I for one am not yet convinced that the relative benefit is
even worth the maintenance of the additional complication.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>     <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>