Bug 450406 – net-dns/bind-9.9.2_p1: /etc/bind/named.conf now points to /var/bind/root.cache (symlink) instead to /var/bind/named.cache (the target file)

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Martin Mokrejš 2013-01-05 15:41:53 UTC]

There are two reasons I am not happy with this bind ebuild. First of all, the change in /etc/bind/named.conf is functionally useless, only makes people upset when inspecting what has change and what might break their DNS servers. Second, why does it now point to a symlink? If you want to point to the now preferred name, make that a real file and make the others in that directory symlinks to it. Forcing the server to interpret the symlink all the time just because of bad config file is a waste. Finally, is it really intended that /chroot/dns/var/bind/root.cache is resolved as /var/bind/named.cache (outside the chroot)?

The changes proposed right now by the ebuild do schematically the following:

- /etc/bind/named.conf
+ /etc/bind/._cfg0000_named.conf
...
- file "/var/bind/named.cache";
+ file "/var/bind/root.cache";
...


But I do have on my filesystem:

# ls -la /var/bind/*          
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    11 Jul 31  2010 /var/bind/named.ca -> named.cache
-rw-r----- 1 root named 3048 Jan  5 16:21 /var/bind/named.cache
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    21 Jan  5 16:21 /var/bind/root.cache -> /var/bind/named.cache
#
# ls -la /chroot/dns/var/bind/
total 28
drwxrwx--- 6 root named 4096 Jan  5 16:21 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root  4096 Jul 31  2010 ..
drwxrwx--- 2 root named 4096 Jan  5 16:21 dyn
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    11 Jul 31  2010 named.ca -> named.cache
-rw-r----- 1 root named 3048 Jan  5 16:21 named.cache
drwxr-x--- 2 root named 4096 Jan  5 16:21 pri
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    21 Jan  5 16:21 root.cache -> /var/bind/named.cache
drwxrwx--- 2 root named 4096 Jan  5 16:21 sec
drwxrwxr-x 2 root named 4096 Jan 27  2011 working
#

Finally, why are the softlinks with full path? Shouldn't they be relative to the current directory only (so "ln -s named.cache root.cache" instead)?

[Comment 1 Christian Ruppert (idl0r) 2013-02-28 22:48:14 UTC]

I fixed the include as well as the symlink. Thanks!