Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 08:21:36 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP! Kerberos5/Heimdal now default! Message-ID: <20030505152136.GB31920@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20030505142945.15738.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20030505052615.R2996@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030505142945.15738.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 02:29:45PM -0000, Thomas Seck wrote: > * Doug Barton (DougB@freebsd.org): > > > I'm completely uninterested in what other OSes do in this regard. We've > > been doing a fairly good job in -current of tightening up the default > > install. I see this as a big step in the wrong direction. > > I can live with a 'NO_KERBEROS' make option. > > Having the kerberos stuff in a separate tarball and de-selectable in > sysinstall is enough to 'satisfy' my needs. I wonder why Kerberos was > always part of the default installation set anyway? With recent changes, Kerberos is no longer separate or de-selectable from sysinstall, unless you also get rid of e.g. openssh. That's part of what we're discussing. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+toGAWry0BWjoQKURAqqEAJ4vzpW08G/OY3YqPjJICwtB7yH/GgCfX8L9 pUBcFjgmjSVG6PYTWbCuJyo= =OcDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030505152136.GB31920>