1 |
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On 02/24/2013 09:48 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right |
5 |
>>> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed |
6 |
>>> here, so...) |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to |
9 |
>>> enable kerberos system-wide on my server. |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an explicit dependency on |
12 |
>>> app-crypt/mit-krb5 (bug 231936) and net-fs/samba-4.0.3 depends on |
13 |
>>> app-crypt/heimdal (for reasons noted in bug 195703, comment 25). |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> I'm not familiar with anyone using Kerberos on Gentoo. I use it on |
16 |
>> Ubuntu; but we do not use it with Samba (or at least, if we do, I am |
17 |
>> not aware of it.) |
18 |
> |
19 |
> It's one of the core components of Active Directory, so anyone who puts |
20 |
> a Gentoo machine on an AD domain will likely be using it. I'm playing |
21 |
> around with Samba 4, which is supposed to have full support as a |
22 |
> standalone AD controller. An AD controller is effectively a central box |
23 |
> that manages and directs domain members to DNS (the host directory), |
24 |
> LDAP (the user and authorization directory) and Kerberos (the |
25 |
> authentication mechanism). |
26 |
|
27 |
Don't misunderstand, I know what all these things are ;) |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>>> Questions: |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> 1) If upstream isn't going to support mit-krb5, then use of samba-4.0.3 |
35 |
>>> and kerberos demands that things with explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 |
36 |
>>> either be fixed or not used at all. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> I'm fairly sure samba supports either kerberos implementation; is |
39 |
>> there something that makes you think differently? |
40 |
> |
41 |
> The explicit dependency on app-crypt/heimdal in the ebuild, and comment |
42 |
> 25 attached to b.g.o bug 195703. I've taken those at face value; I |
43 |
> haven't followed up on them myself. |
44 |
> |
45 |
>> |
46 |
>>> |
47 |
>>> I'm the first activity on bug 231936 in two years...could someone please |
48 |
>>> look into that one? |
49 |
>>> |
50 |
>>> 2) Is it possible to slot mit-krb5 and heimdal instead of pulling them |
51 |
>>> through a virtual? My suspicion is "no", but I don't know enough about |
52 |
>>> kerberos to say whether or not it would work, even as a hack. |
53 |
>>> |
54 |
>> |
55 |
>> I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You |
56 |
>> are not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions |
57 |
>> of the library to be installed in one ROOT? |
58 |
>> |
59 |
>> I would not advocate this approach. You should strive to have only one |
60 |
>> kerberos implementation on a given machine. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> I'm really not certain, to be honest. It was my impression that slots |
63 |
> allow for two different versions of a thing to be present on the same |
64 |
> system, and that their different sonames on the system would lead to |
65 |
> correct symbol resolution. (Although it would require that the soname |
66 |
> being sought be adjusted in a dependent program to target the version |
67 |
> required.) |
68 |
|
69 |
mit-krb5 and heimdal are separate packages. They both provide krb |
70 |
headers and kerb libraries. You could easily patch them to be on the |
71 |
same system. The problem with doing so is that packages are expecting |
72 |
only one set of kerberos headers and kerberos shared libraries. |
73 |
|
74 |
We have the 'eselect' framework for switching between 'providers' |
75 |
which we could use in this case (similar to say, the opengl libraries |
76 |
your system might use.) It is not clear to me if switching providers |
77 |
is at all safe in the kerberos instance, or if software built against |
78 |
mit-krb5 would crash if you pointed the loader at some heimdal shared |
79 |
objects. |
80 |
|
81 |
> |
82 |
> Even if it works, I acknowledge it's a nauseating hack for the circumstance. |
83 |
> |
84 |
>> |
85 |
>>> I'm sure explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 and heimdal will continue to |
86 |
>>> crop up, so (and forgive the nausea this might cause) it might help to |
87 |
>>> slot mit and heimdal, and have virtual/krb5 depend on the presence of at |
88 |
>>> least one. |
89 |
>>> |
90 |
>> |
91 |
>> It is likely that explicit dependencies are wrong, and are just bugs. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> This is what I found in the ebuild for net-fs/nfs-utils: |
94 |
> |
95 |
> # kth-krb doesn't provide the right include |
96 |
> # files, and nfs-utils doesn't build against heimdal either, |
97 |
> # so don't depend on virtual/krb. |
98 |
> # (04 Feb 2005 agriffis) |
99 |
> |
100 |
> Which I noted in a comment I attached to bug 231936 (relating to |
101 |
> net-fs/nfs-util). |
102 |
> |
103 |
> In bug 195703 (relating to the samba-4 version bump), there's this: |
104 |
> |
105 |
> "Since samba 4 doesn't support mit-krb5, I think we shouldn't depend on |
106 |
> virtual/krb5 but instead directly on heimdal after the com_err.h problem |
107 |
> is fixed." in comment 25, dated 2009-11-24 23:07:18 UTC. |
108 |
> |
109 |
> Directly responded to later by this: |
110 |
> |
111 |
> "Agreed." in comment 26, dated 2009-11-25 10:01:48 UTC |
112 |
> |
113 |
> |
114 |
> |
115 |
|
116 |
So nothing recent then ;p |
117 |
|
118 |
I think just 'eras' is the only person in the kerberos herd at this |
119 |
point. I only have a passing interest in it myself (and I'm not |
120 |
looking to maintain it in Gentoo ;)) |
121 |
|
122 |
-A |