Re: Re : named -t flag does not work?

[Josh <pkplex@orcon.net.nz>]

I don't know if he 'really needs to', but why not give him the benefit of 
the doubt and
just fix the bug?

Its not like major changes are required.

At 06:39 PM 5/27/04 -0600, you wrote:

> > Personally I do not have any need to run named without the default 
> chroot..
> > however
> > the bug was found by someone who did need to run without the chroot.
>
>         Back to "did they really need to"
>
>         I'll bet a beer that they simply didn't want to move their
>configuration files from their existing location and therefore decided
>to run it outside the chroot.
>
>         We should not support such laziness. If the choice is
>lazy/convienince versus security, we should choose security. Required
>functionality is different. I'm betting this is laziness.
>
>         -Bob