From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Oct 23 18:28:33 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB9815AB55 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46yzQn2yy5z4WXl for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 6386C15AB54; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6345315AB53 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46yzQn1nY1z4WXk for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059C9936 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x9NISWLP012777 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:32 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x9NISWpu012741 for ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:32 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 241347] security/sssd: Update to 1.16.4 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:32 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: prj@rootwyrm.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:28:33 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D241347 --- Comment #10 from Phillip R. Jaenke --- > I would probably need to update port to not rely on pyhton3 but directly = use python3.6. Is that what you want? Definitely not; I just saw the python2 and was worried it might be attempti= ng to use that. ports should still have 3.4+ for quite some time, so the flavo= rs method (and SHEBANGFIX) that Rick mentioned would be the best way there. > Do I understand that you worry about mixing MIT krb5 and heimdal when bui= lding with samba ? Yes, this is a known issue we ran into back on 1.13 when it was working cle= anly if you don't recall. By default, FreeBSD samba4x uses the built-in Heimdal = due to AD_DC being a default option. So a user taking samba48 or samba410 from pkg.freebsd.org and building security/sssd locally will end up with a broken sssd. samba48+ now has the option for MIT due upstream updates, but it's a non-default option on FreeBSD. So some additional care needs to be taken in= the context of FreeBSD. Basically the security/sssd port should tell the user t= hat the MIT option is required on their samba48 or samba410. > The tricky part is winbind_idmap_sss.so The might change ABI between vers= ions and thus you need to recompile the plugin and to "downgrade" version with --with-smb-idmap-interface-version=3D6 > Sure that module needn't be used by anyone and ipa and ad provider would = work. But it is dangeroups therefore I decided to stick with samna-4.10 I would argue that it is a LOT more dangerous to NOT have the AD provider. I don't think the IPA provider is going to work correctly anyways (but it has been a while and I don't have a test environment handy.) But the AD provide= r is basically the number one use case on FreeBSD. So not having it working is g= oing to be a LOT worse than people having Samba without MIT kerberos. The Samba API changes absolutely make it a challenge and a half though, ESPECIALLY because net/samba410 is Schroedinger's Port: both broken and working. And both with built-in ldb and ldb1.5 (I think, I'd have to look again.) And in a lot of flux because AD_DC provisioning is broken plus folks attempting to fix it on ZFS again. That really throws a wrench into the wor= ks.=20 Rick, do you know of an approved or at least not-horrible way to do CONFIG+=3D--with-smb-idmap-interface-version=3D6 based on the DEFAULT_VERSI= ONS value for samba? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=