Internal dns server changed between RC2 & 4.1.0pre1-GIT-2c3a808
repenny at f2s.com
Tue Oct 16 06:46:57 MDT 2012
On 15/10/12 23:54, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 21:56 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
>> On 2012-10-15 21:48, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> On 15/10/12 20:19, Kai Blin wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-15 19:21, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>>> It is one I found on the internet and altered to fit my needs, as I said
>>>>> it works on RC2 but now will not work on pre1.
>>>>> basically the script is run by dhcp from dhcpd.conf, it checks a
>>>>> kerberos keytab then runs nsupdate to first delete the pc's nameserver
>>>>> record (if there is one) then adds it into to the required zone. The
>>>>> script then checks to see if the record now exists.
>>>> Hm, I think we got rid of the DNS special user for RC1, but I seem to
>>>> remember Jelmer added back the code that adds it to some of the upgrade
>>>> scripts. Did you run any?
>>> No I didn't, I just provisioned as normal, but there is a user at
>>> CN=dns-adserver,CN=Users,DC=home,DC=lan. Should I remover this user or
>>> can I just ignore it?
>> Ah, it's a new provision. That's relevant information. Try removing that
>> user. It's been causing trouble for me in the past.
> It's been lost in all the review discussion, but we actually do need to
> revert that patch, it was put in based on a misunderstanding.
> We also need to patch up the internal DNS server to cope with the
> dns-SERVER user (it's not difficult, just needs to be done, and avoids
> needing to run the upgrade script in one direction).
> Andrew Bartlett
As RC3 is out, I have installed and provisioned this instead, the dns
user is not created in this version, also my script now works again.
Something in 4.1.0pre1-GIT-2c3a808 is stopping nsupdate from adding
records to the internal nameserver. The script that I am using is
modified from one to update Microsoft's DNS server:
The mods I did were mostly in checking whether the update had occurred.
I think that the internal nameserver in pre1 is not working the same as
the Microsoft one.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the samba-technical