Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:53:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Kerberos 5 (was Re: cvs commit: src/release ...) Message-ID: <200305010153.h411rGdE057570@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030501003606.GD14221@roark.gnf.org> References: <200304301754.h3UHsJ21004574@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030430222849.GC14221@roark.gnf.org> <20030430202449.GA23953@sunbay.com> <20030430194402.GB84924@rot13.obsecurity.org> <200304301952.h3UJqiQL016860@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20030430200008.GA85160@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030430181603.GD84302@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030501002206.GA30097@madman.celabo.org> <20030501003606.GD14221@roark.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:36:07 -0700, Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> said: > suppose that makes me for the change. Either that or dropping krb5 > out of the system completely. But as there are pretty significant > integration benefits (openssh, telnet, etc) I think we should keep > it. I'm of two minds about this. I would like to see good integration between Kerberos and base-system utilities, but we run MIT Kerberos, not Heimdal, and such integration makes life enormously more difficult. Right now it's not much of an issue because we can build everything that depends on Kerberos from ports, which saves a great deal of version-skew hassle, but I can see further integration causing problems for us. I wouldn't want to have to use a port for OpenSSL, for example, and thereby lose all of the value that we get from having it integrated nicely with the operating system. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305010153.h411rGdE057570>