[2293] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Is anyone working on the Macintosh port?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Vale)
Sun Mar 9 07:11:14 1997
Resent-From: mjv@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 07:09:29 -0500
To: krbdev@MIT.EDU
From: Marshall Vale <mjv@MIT.EDU>
Ezra,
>A simple question:
>
>Is anyone working on the Macintosh port? I.e. is someone responsible for
>it.
Theoretically :) We (macdev) have had to focus on a couple of other
work areas recently. Another hinderence was the failing of the Mac
build machine which is why we've been behind in checking snapshots.
It basically needed nearly all of its secondary storage organs
replaced.
>It was not so difficult, but the documentaion is really lacking.
>I am using codewarrior IDE 1.7 - which I believe is newer than the
>documentation .
>>a) The project files are terribly out of date. Much of my time was
>adding and removing files from the project lists.
The problem lies in the fact that we aren't using the project files
anymore to do the builds and the only documentation in the Mac
snapshot is probably referring to those old project files. I think
they were last used with CW6 or 7.
We're currently doing the builds with CW9 and the Metrowerks compilers
hosted under MPW (MWC68K and MWCPPC). With 10 targets, including SAP
variants, it is the only way we've been able to keep sane with changes.
The Makefile should be there at the root level in the Mac snapshot.
We didn't go to CW10 as it came out as we were readying the first big
MIT internal release for SAP and I didn't feel that the CW10 changes
were going to be worth the hassle of upgrading the dev environment.
The move from CW8 to CW9 was very painful on the MPW tool side.
I haven't tested the Makefile with CW10 or CW11 yet. I vaguely remember
checking the changes for the MPW tools with CW10 and thinking that
there shouldn't be any gotchas. Dunno about CW11, I've barely had
a chance to unpack the box.
As we start cranking up on Krb5 work again, we'll take a look at moving
up to CW11. Of course, CW12 is only a few months away now and
maybe, just maybe, they'll add multi-target support in their project
files?!? Naah, Metrowerks has only been saying Real Soon Now for over
a year; I don't think that makes it officially late in this industry yet.
(There's an alpha of CW IDE 2.0 that does have the feature on the
CW11 discs but it is very unstable and who knows if it'll hit release
status by CW12).
>b) I have not tested the gss-client - I will tomorrow.
We're in the process of rewriting this so it talks to the shared
library version and not just the static libs. Also adding a retry button.
I don't have an ETA on this. (I had to find a Krb5 snapshot that
worked for the Watchmaker to use.)
>c) kconfig, if you are missing krb5.ini will complain that it is
>missing and exit, but will have created a krb5.ini preference file - I
>liked that one.
We have plans for KConfig and they aren't nice >)
>d) I will not repackage the package files - as I do not want to force
>everyone to use a newer version of codewarrior than what is docuemented.
>
>So, I guess a decision needs to be made - what is the supported version
>of codewarrior that you want to see? Maybe we can get the package files
>updated...
Considering how many project files there are and how strapped we are
for resources, we may not do anything with them (perhaps we should just
remove them, Ted?) until Metrowerks adds the multitarget project files.
In the short term, I'm only going to be working with, and improving,
the MPW Makefile.
Marshall
