Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:14:32 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 197337] rc.d/kdc missing with WITHOUT_KERBEROS, but Kerberos ports need it Message-ID: <bug-197337-8-Om1SL07oRU@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-197337-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-197337-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197337 Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|New |In Progress --- Comment #2 from Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org> --- The question is, should /etc/rc.d/kdc be the correct file or should the krb5 ports use their own file? I could argue it both ways but we should look at existing and prior precedents such as, - named (when it was still in base), bind9X ports - sendmail (in base), sendmail (in ports), postfix, exim, etc... - ntp (in base), ntp (in ports), and ntp-devel - there are probably others that don't come to mind right now. I'd like to keep the approach consistent across all classes of software. Having said that, I can argue for ${LOCALBASE}/etc/rc.d/kdc if all other ports do the same or if that is our direction. I think a bigger discussion is needed to set the standard. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-197337-8-Om1SL07oRU>