| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 2 |
<prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol 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 |
>> Questions: |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> 1) If upstream isn't going to support mit-krb5, then use of samba-4.0.3 |
| 18 |
>> and kerberos demands that things with explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 |
| 19 |
>> either be fixed or not used at all. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> I'm the first activity on bug 231936 in two years...could someone please |
| 22 |
>> look into that one? |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> 2) Is it possible to slot mit-krb5 and heimdal instead of pulling them |
| 25 |
>> through a virtual? My suspicion is "no", but I don't know enough about |
| 26 |
>> kerberos to say whether or not it would work, even as a hack. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> I'm sure explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 and heimdal will continue to |
| 29 |
>> crop up, so (and forgive the nausea this might cause) it might help to |
| 30 |
>> slot mit and heimdal, and have virtual/krb5 depend on the presence of at |
| 31 |
>> least one. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> so, read the thread so far, and I think you are over-complicating things |
| 34 |
> with slotting. I use kerberos at home (more or less just to learn it, |
| 35 |
> worksforme, etc). I chose MIT. From what I understand MIT and heimdal |
| 36 |
> are mutually exclusive (can not operate with eachother) and that heimdal |
| 37 |
> is what windows uses. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This is incorrect, or at least, was incorrect last time I looked |
| 40 |
(circa...uhh..2009?) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
They work 'ok' together. Heimdal clients could talk to MIT servers at |
| 43 |
least. Of course, there were quirks, and incompatible command line |
| 44 |
syntax, hence my fierce recommendation to 'not do that.' |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> What this seems to be is a simple case of blockers. So, the quesiton |
| 48 |
> is, are you going to be using kerberos in nfs? if not, masking the flag |
| 49 |
> may be what works for you (in the short term at least). Longer term it |
| 50 |
> sounds like maybe seperate use flags are in order (or something, dunno). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Do not use Kerberized NFSv3. I'm unsure if nfsv4 is any better :/ |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-A |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows focused. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> On another note, I can't find bug 231936. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> -- |
| 62 |
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 63 |
> |
Archives