Craig White wrote: >>caching-nameserver is just the config files ... it requires bind to be >>installed too >> >> >---- >given the fact that the result of an update breaks working >configurations and avoiding that situation is one of the targets of the >upstream provider, the upstream provider probably should invest a little >bit of time/energy to ensure that this is unlikely to occur. > >Given there are idiot admins like me who rarely miss an opportunity to >step on their d*cks...(I think I only got caught on this once but never >knew until now, why that was the case). > > Heh...that's OK. I only discovered this by accident as well. And it was only very recently...maybe 6-9 months ago...after having used RH Linux since version 4-ish. Cheers,