[nsd-users] NSD still shows permission errors on Debian 10 Buster

[mj]

Hi,

Super interesting dialogue following this issue. Nice to see how this is 
picked up by the NSD team.

The problem discussed in this thread makes me feel that the debian NSD 
package may not receive as much attention as it perhaps should...?

What is consensus here: simpy "apt install nsd" or look into compiling 
from source? (like for example is recommended in the case of samba ADDC)

MJ

On 5/28/20 2:34 AM, Simon Deziel via nsd-users wrote:
> On 2020-05-27 3:18 p.m., Anand Buddhdev via nsd-users wrote:
>> On 27/05/2020 19:02, Simon Deziel wrote:
>>>>> As for the failed unlinking of the pidfile, this is harmless and should
>>>>> not be logged as a warning. It may already be fixed in newer
>>>>> releases as
>>>>> it was done with Unbound already.
>>>>
>>>> PID files are so passé! They are irrelevant on systems where daemons are
>>>> run under supervisors. I would highly recommend setting "pidfile" to ""
>>>> in nsd.conf. This prevents creation of a PID file. Systemd already knows
>>>> the PID of the NSD process, and can signal it directly.
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to simply ignore the pidfile directive when running
>>> through systemd?
>>
>> No. I don't like it when software silently does things. Instead, when
>> package maintainers build NSD for systems with systemd, they should pass
>> the --with-pidfile="" option to the configure script, so that by
>> default, NSD doesn't create PID files.
> 
> I like the idea. Since Debian wants to preserve compatibility with both
> systemd and init, I proposed a slightly different fix to Debian for nsd
> [1] and unbound [2]. Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
> 1: https://salsa.debian.org/dns-team/nsd/-/merge_requests/4
> 2: https://salsa.debian.org/dns-team/unbound/-/merge_requests/9
> _______________________________________________
> nsd-users mailing list
> nsd-users at lists.nlnetlabs.nl
> https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/nsd-users
>