inconsistent and incompatible naming of bind files
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
bind9 (Ubuntu) |
Won't Fix
|
Low
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Binary package hint: bind9
Bind9 uses per default (compiled from scratch)
/etc/named
/var/cache/named
/var/lib/named
/var/log/named
/var/run/named
/var/tmp/named
With ubuntu this is now:
/etc/bind
/var/cache/bind
/var/lib/bind
/var/log/named
/var/run/named
/var/tmp/bind
Could we please have this as expected by the binary: all in "named" directories? It is quite a pitty to transfer named configurations across systems if one doesn't stay in line, renaming parts inconsistently, just because someone thought this could be a good idea!
Could we please stay at using "named" for all and everything "/usr/sbin/named" is using??!
Same for all starting scripts: please use "/etc/default/
This was my first. Had to lower my angriness.
Second: /etc/apparmor.
As found in /etc/apparmor.
/var/tmp/named/** rw,
/var/tmp/named/ rw,
What it is configured for:
/var/tmp/bind/** rw,
/var/tmp/bind/ rw,
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: bind9 1:9.7.1.
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-
Architecture: i386
Date: Wed Jan 5 10:54:49 2011
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu-Server 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release i386 (20101007)
ProcEnviron:
LANG=de_DE.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: bind9
Changed in bind9 (Ubuntu): | |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
status: | New → Confirmed |
Debian (and therefore ubuntu) policy 10.7.2 (configuration file location):
"Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in /etc. If there are several, consider creating a subdirectory of /etc named after your package."
That is what led to the choice to place them all in /etc/bind, with consistency across the rest of the directories (in keeping with the filesystem layout policy.) and the package is 'bind', not 'named'.