[16305] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Project Review: kinit -C
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Russ Allbery)
Wed Sep 15 16:41:58 2010
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: krbdev@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <tslzkvjktgl.fsf@live.mit.edu> (Sam Hartman's message of "Wed, 15
Sep 2010 09:49:14 -0400")
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:41:53 -0700
Message-ID: <8762y6viwe.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU> writes:
>>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Howard <lukeh@padl.com> writes:
> Luke> Yeah, if we're doing this way I'd prefer to build kinit and
> Luke> kinit.local. That's consistent with kadmin. -- Luke
> Right. It's kadmin.local that makes me want to avoid doing something
> similar. We certainly can do that if needed. However as a packager I've
> found kadmin vs kadmin.local to be a significantly worse experience than
> adding a couple of extra libraries as dependencies to the package
> containing kinit.
Note, for example, that Heimdal made the opposite decision with kadmin,
and I've certainly found it convenient to be able to just use kadmin -l.
I've never noticed any problems from having the server libraries installed
as well as the client libraries.
kinit, admittedly, is a much more widely used program than kadmin, but I
think I'm with Sam in not seeing a whole lot of trouble with some
additional library links.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
