[2057] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: comments on HP and BSDI problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Mon Dec 2 19:32:26 1996
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:30:43 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, Ezra Peisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU>,
Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>, krbdev@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Sam Hartman's message of 02 Dec 1996 14:58:44 -0500,
<tslenh8btvv.fsf@tertius.mit.edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Date: 02 Dec 1996 14:58:44 -0500
I'm mildly uncomfortable with this solution because it does
involve less testing of these patches than other changes that have
been made in the past. We will still have to recompile for all
architectures that we have built for, throwing away old binaries.
There for, you have most of the inconvenience of a full code thaw with
most of the problems associated with a quick fix.
The main disadvatnage is the fact that we need to recompile all the
binary distributions. If we use the #ifdef hpux approach, the chances
of problems are small.
Frankly, I don't see a problem releasing something that is
broken for Hpux along with a patch in the HP binary distribution.
HPUX fans may complain, but that's a workable solution.
OK, we'll live with a patch; I'll let Doug know that this is to include
his patch in the build.
- Ted
