On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Phil Schaffner
<Philip.R.Schaffner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So, out of morbid curiosity, and because it seems to have been my post
> on the SL list you quoted that helped get you into this state, was
> anything other than the replacement process actually broken?
Actually, it was Karanbir's statement that led me to believe it would
be possible to have a real choice ...
As far as answering your question, other than BIND, the truth is "I don't know."
> I certainly would not have endorsed throwing Oracle into the mix.
There's an old saying that goes like "make chicken salad with the
chickens you've got."
> Will be interesting to see how you fare with your three-way hybrid when
> CentOS 5.6 hits the mirrors.
Feel free to pen a stanza which I will run on the system to determine
the actual DNA head count and thus whether it is a hybrid ...
At the risk of irritating folks further with the great-grandmother of
the situation, RH and downstreams need to get serious about BIND, et
al.
e.g. (and not the best one by far, just the one that led me down the
path (yikes, www.yahoo is here in rural north Texas on a leaf node)),
<http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html-single/5.6_Technical_Notes/index.html#bind>
says, in part:
"* The host/dig/nslookup utilities queried only servers from
resolv.conf. With this update, the utilities query the servers
specified on command line instead of in resolv.conf and the issue is
resolved. ( BZ#561299)"
AFAIK, that's the status of the clones at this time. Still unexplained is why
'host www.yahoo.com 208.67.220.220' and 'host www.yahoo.com 8.8.8.8'
got completely different answers.
kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
