On 02/02/2011 09:22 AM, Larry Vaden wrote: > What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient > code base for such important programs as BIND et al? Directives in the configuration files have changed. Users of RHEL expect to be able to update their systems without anything breaking. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
- From: Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:52:17 -0800
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTimkk7dgaJ0PsPTZSqzx+x54dj-RnzXSR5eQRnZa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: glibc++6.2?
- Next by Date: Re: Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
- Previous by thread: Re: Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
- Next by thread: Re: Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND, et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
- Index(es):
 |