FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-21-2011, 05:40 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default heimdal packaging

I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001

heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.

One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-21-2011, 05:40 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default heimdal packaging

I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001


heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.


One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?


--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 01-21-2011, 06:34 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default heimdal packaging

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
>
> heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
> assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.
>
From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.

> One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
> we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
> it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?
>
From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.

(Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
%{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
implementations interact to say for sure).

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-21-2011, 06:34 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default heimdal packaging

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
>
> heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
> assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.
>
From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.

> One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
> we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
> it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?
>
From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.

(Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
%{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
implementations interact to say for sure).

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-21-2011, 06:34 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default heimdal packaging

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
>
> heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
> assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.
>
From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.

> One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
> we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
> it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?
>
From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.

(Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
%{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
implementations interact to say for sure).

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2011, 09:29 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default heimdal packaging

On 01/21/2011 12:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
>>
>> heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
>> assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.
>>
> From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
> something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
> so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.
>
>> One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
>> we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
>> it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?
>>
> From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
> rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
> other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.
>
> (Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
> %{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
> implementations interact to say for sure).

Seeing some more activity on this. It appears that while most command names
are basically the same, the options are not the same between MIT and Heimdal.
I don't know details. I suppose that will just have to be user beware.

Also libraries have different sonames:

MIT:
/lib/libkrb5.so.3
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so -> libkadm5clnt_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt_mit.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so -> libkadm5srv_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv_mit.so.7

Heimdal:
/usr/lib/libkrb5.so.26
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so.8

So I think use of %{_libdir}/heimdal is going to be a must.

I really know little about the inner workings of either unfortunately. Any
help on this is appreciated.

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 03-28-2011, 09:29 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default heimdal packaging

On 01/21/2011 12:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
>>
>> heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
>> assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.
>>
> From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
> something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
> so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.
>
>> One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
>> we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
>> it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?
>>
> From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
> rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
> other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.
>
> (Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
> %{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
> implementations interact to say for sure).

Seeing some more activity on this. It appears that while most command names
are basically the same, the options are not the same between MIT and Heimdal.
I don't know details. I suppose that will just have to be user beware.

Also libraries have different sonames:

MIT:
/lib/libkrb5.so.3
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so -> libkadm5clnt_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt_mit.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so -> libkadm5srv_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv_mit.so.7

Heimdal:
/usr/lib/libkrb5.so.26
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so.8

So I think use of %{_libdir}/heimdal is going to be a must.

I really know little about the inner workings of either unfortunately. Any
help on this is appreciated.

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 03-28-2011, 09:29 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default heimdal packaging

On 01/21/2011 12:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:

I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001

heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm
assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence.


From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's
something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference
so that seems to fit the way alternatives works.


One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way
we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is
it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package?


From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make
rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the
other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case.

(Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say
%{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos
implementations interact to say for sure).


Seeing some more activity on this. It appears that while most command names
are basically the same, the options are not the same between MIT and Heimdal.
I don't know details. I suppose that will just have to be user beware.


Also libraries have different sonames:

MIT:
/lib/libkrb5.so.3
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so -> libkadm5clnt_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt_mit.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so -> libkadm5srv_mit.so
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv_mit.so.7

Heimdal:
/usr/lib/libkrb5.so.26
/usr/lib/libkadm5clnt.so.7
/usr/lib/libkadm5srv.so.8

So I think use of %{_libdir}/heimdal is going to be a must.

I really know little about the inner workings of either unfortunately. Any
help on this is appreciated.


--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:31 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org