[Samba] dynamic DNS Updates still failing, re-installed 9 more times, tried everything I could think of, now bald.
garymaurizi at gmail.com
Sun Jun 2 18:40:21 MDT 2013
I want to thank you both so very much for your help.
It's another day and I'm back to it, refreshed, and determined to figure
out what is causing so many issues for the CentOS 6.4 users.
Going through the same exact steps on ubuntu 12.04 on a different machine
does give me working dynamic DNS updates, so I have isolated the issue I'm
having to CentOS only slightly.
Though bind does not run chrooted by default/at all on CentOS 6.4, I am at
the point of wondering if maybe some of the samba related features are
either compiled in and broken/buggy, or not compiled in at all for the bind
package in the base repositories.
I would like to try compiling bind 9.9 from source with all of the options
explicitly stated, but was just wondering if maybe some one could take a
look at the build options for the CentOS-Base repo version of bind and see
if anything sticks out as missing, I don't want to miss something samba
needs in 9.9 using the same options presented below, when I do this. :)
[root at server samba-master]# named -V
BIND 9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.17.rc1.el6_4.4 built with
'--target=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-prefix=' '--prefix=/usr'
'--exec-prefix=/usr' '--bindir=/usr/bin' '--sbindir=/usr/sbin'
'--sysconfdir=/etc' '--datadir=/usr/share' '--includedir=/usr/include'
'--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--with-libtool' '--localstatedir=/var'
'--enable-threads' '--enable-ipv6' '--with-pic' '--disable-static'
'--with-dlz-filesystem=yes' '--with-gssapi=yes' '--disable-isc-spnego'
'CFLAGS= -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' 'CPPFLAGS=
using OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 1.0.0 29 Mar 2010
using libxml2 version: 2.7.6
[root at server samba-master]#
Thank You so much,
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 01:11 +0200, steve wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 08:16 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 00:05 +0200, steve wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > openSUSE 12.3
> > > > This is the first time in many years where the SUSE/openSUSE bind has
> > > > _almost_ worked out of the box. They will not entertain non chrooted
> > > > installs.
> > >
> > > This is somehow totally disabled?
> > No. You can enable it, but the chroot is the default. You cannot install
> > bind without the bind-chroot environment package too.
> > >
> > > > I've tested it. It's OK without tkey-domain nor
> > >
> > > Good.
> > >
> > > > I am trying to present as minimal a setup for the OP. I think in
> > > > situations such as these, it is important to get bind working choose
> > > > what. For that we must cut it down to an absolute minimal install
> > > > security settings wide open. once it's working, then we can. . .
> > > >
> > > > I think that DNS is still our weakest link and I'm really pleased to
> > > > the devs looking through the end user list occasionally. Until the
> > > > internal DNS is ready, we're stuck with bind. Let's try and make it
> > > > painless as possible for ourselves.
> > >
> > > The only way we can really improve it (as far as I'm currently aware)
> > > to take the bind binary, and launch it with a custom config file inside
> > > 'samba' like we do smbd, pointing only at our DNS zone, and with chroot
> > > etc disabled.
> > >
> > > That should, in theory, get us most of the control we get with the
> > > internal server. Someone needs to write the patches however, and it
> > > would mean we gain yet another DNS mode (which may be more trouble than
> > > it's worth - I don't know).
> > >
> > > Andrew Bartlett
> > End users need something simple to install. We also need something that
> > does dynamic dns reliably. The strong points of the internal dns are
> > it's simplicity of installation. Would it be possible to get it to do
> > dns updates from nsupdate?
> It does do dns updates from nsupdate. There is a client-side error
> shown *after* the successful update, but the developer who developed the
> patch for this hasn't been able to write the tests to allow his changes
> to make it into master.
> > The only reason most of us have to go with
> > bind is because we need reliable dynamic dns updates. Not just sometimes
> > and then only with windows clients. Many of the questions and confusion
> > on this list is to do with DNS. Get that sorted and you have a killer
> > app.
> We are not aware that this is anything more than a cosmetic issue. We
> know it looks really bad, but we need someone to pick up that patch, and
> find a way to test.
> > As this is a very big stopper for many of us, would it be possible to
> > consider a change of developer emphasis for 4.1? Something like a 'DNS
> > or bust' approach? Many of the things you are doing are amazing but
> > without the basic DNS, they're lost on us end users. If you wanted any
> > DNS testers to get it to the rolling out stage, I'm sure many of us here
> > would be only too pleased to help you test whatever you could throw at
> > us.
> Sadly that just isn't how the Samba Team works, sorry.
> > Thanks for reading. Please don't lose sight of those of us do not code.
> > We're still very much Samba and still very much here to help the devs
> > and so the project.
> We do very much appreciate your interest.
> Andrew Bartlett
> Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
More information about the samba