[16995] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: : Why are we using libverto again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nico Williams)
Thu Jul 7 14:15:17 2011
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tslvcve2chy.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:15:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiLdetPK1JJYs+i3-b7L10fO2h6D5fPigM9soZuhhhhMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:> I understand that. And based on your description of a simple> intermediary, that made some sense. However the complexity of the> intermediary has far exceeded what I was expecting. I'll admit that my> original simple vision wouldn't have worked, but I think we should all> carefully consider what we got and whether it's worth the cost.
I don't think it's terribly complicated. It's simple, actually. Theone problem identified so far is the use of dladdr(), and I think bothuses of it are unnecessary (clever, but unnecessary).
Nico--
_______________________________________________krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.eduhttps://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
