Re: "The World" and MIT krb5

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:52:27AM -0800, Galen Sampson wrote:
> Hello all,
<snip>

[Note: I'm not sure that this should be in current_at_ rather than ports_at_]

> 1) Are the worlds daemons written to link against kerberos (as apposed to the
>    heimdal replacements replacing their traditional counterparts)?

The MIT krb5 port includes it's own daemons.

> 4) Are people that use the MIT kerberos port replacing their daemons (telnet
>    [d], login, ftp[d]) with the ports versions with good success?

Yup. Or they're using the Heimdal daemons in the base system (as
described in the handbook chapter on Kerberos 5). I prefer MIT myself,
but that's largely because of unrelated benefits that may apply only in
my situation.

> I'd imagine that since the port is installed in /usr/local things might not
> work so great if /usr/local can't be accessed (because of mount failure, etc.)
> unless the daemons are statically linked (NO THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT STATIC
> LINKING, THIS IS AN OBSERVATION ABOUT THIS PORT AND A POSSIBLE ANSWER TO 3).

I'm not sure what you're talking about here ... if the deamons are in
/usr/local/, and the /usr/local isn't available, static linking isn't
going to help :-)

I tend to put them in /usr/local/krb5 so that I can control which
application I get by default with creative $PATH ordering.

-T


-- 
>From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the
crack pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes.
    - A.S.R. quote (Joe Thompson)