Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:15:33 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> Subject: Re: Our aging base system krb5 [heimdal] Message-ID: <AANLkTimRWT9cubiEOg2bZujxvc_DHsYNu2V5r4-fyXpd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0BFBAB.9030808@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTik213g_8W2ocr3mCCb2EED8RBXsYBavdYll1PI_@mail.gmail.com> <19467.61790.690469.182207@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006061221130.73670@legolas.orthanc.ca> <4C0BF89F.90908@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006061240460.73670@legolas.orthanc.ca> <4C0BFBAB.9030808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I would love for it to go away entirely, and those base-system >components that depend on it to learn how to use either Kerberos >implementation from ports. (I'd also love for the ancient and broken >base version of libcom_err to go away -- there's no knob to turn it >off, and the shared library conflicts with ports/krb5.) I think that would please a lot of people -- but is the project still committed to having a Kerberos implementation as one of a few important applications in the base system, so that users don't have to rely upon ports? Would relegating it to ports mean that Kerberos would be disabled by default in base system utilities, so that the base system is self-hosting? What incompatibilities exist between that latest versions of the MIT Kerberos and Heimdal implementations? How does des@ feel about it, since libpam and openssh may have to be altered? b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimRWT9cubiEOg2bZujxvc_DHsYNu2V5r4-fyXpd>