Subject: Re: delay needed after started named?
To: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang+gnus20040504T122000@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com>
Date: 05/04/2004 13:16:09
> Hmm -- that's a thought, though it will make disconnected boots even
> slower than they are today.
Before my portable walked out my back door I used dhcpd as a
on-network detector. If the main interface didn't look like it had a
valid address I bypassed the startup for all sorts of daemons. The
assumption was that I was most likely also on battery and didn't need
to waste all that electricity on things that didn't matter.
> Btw, I don't see a -W option to host on 2.0beta or -current.
Oh. I think this is a bind9-ism. My /usr/pkg/man is upstream of the
normal one. Probably the default timeouts for the older 'host(1)' are
(I figured you must be running bind9 since it has the startup problem
in spades, as did bind-8.)
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <email@example.com> http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/