Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:57:48 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "The World" and MIT krb5 Message-ID: <20031203195748.GK294@seekingfire.com> In-Reply-To: <20031203195227.17023.qmail@web14106.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031203195227.17023.qmail@web14106.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:52:27AM -0800, Galen Sampson wrote:
> Hello all,
<snip>
[Note: I'm not sure that this should be in current@ rather than ports@]
> 1) Are the worlds daemons written to link against kerberos (as apposed to the
> heimdal replacements replacing their traditional counterparts)?
The MIT krb5 port includes it's own daemons.
> 4) Are people that use the MIT kerberos port replacing their daemons (telnet
> [d], login, ftp[d]) with the ports versions with good success?
Yup. Or they're using the Heimdal daemons in the base system (as
described in the handbook chapter on Kerberos 5). I prefer MIT myself,
but that's largely because of unrelated benefits that may apply only in
my situation.
> I'd imagine that since the port is installed in /usr/local things might not
> work so great if /usr/local can't be accessed (because of mount failure, etc.)
> unless the daemons are statically linked (NO THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT STATIC
> LINKING, THIS IS AN OBSERVATION ABOUT THIS PORT AND A POSSIBLE ANSWER TO 3).
I'm not sure what you're talking about here ... if the deamons are in
/usr/local/, and the /usr/local isn't available, static linking isn't
going to help :-)
I tend to put them in /usr/local/krb5 so that I can control which
application I get by default with creative $PATH ordering.
-T
--
>From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the
crack pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes.
- A.S.R. quote (Joe Thompson)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031203195748.GK294>