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?
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
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.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Orion Poplawski -
Toshio Kuratomi