> 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