| 1 |
On 02/24/13 20:25, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right |
| 3 |
> now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed |
| 4 |
> here, so...) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to |
| 7 |
> enable kerberos system-wide on my server. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an explicit dependency on |
| 10 |
> app-crypt/mit-krb5 (bug 231936) and net-fs/samba-4.0.3 depends on |
| 11 |
> app-crypt/heimdal (for reasons noted in bug 195703, comment 25). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Questions: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 1) If upstream isn't going to support mit-krb5, then use of samba-4.0.3 |
| 16 |
> and kerberos demands that things with explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 |
| 17 |
> either be fixed or not used at all. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm the first activity on bug 231936 in two years...could someone please |
| 20 |
> look into that one? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 2) Is it possible to slot mit-krb5 and heimdal instead of pulling them |
| 23 |
> through a virtual? My suspicion is "no", but I don't know enough about |
| 24 |
> kerberos to say whether or not it would work, even as a hack. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I'm sure explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 and heimdal will continue to |
| 27 |
> crop up, so (and forgive the nausea this might cause) it might help to |
| 28 |
> slot mit and heimdal, and have virtual/krb5 depend on the presence of at |
| 29 |
> least one. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
so, read the thread so far, and I think you are over-complicating things |
| 32 |
with slotting. I use kerberos at home (more or less just to learn it, |
| 33 |
worksforme, etc). I chose MIT. From what I understand MIT and heimdal |
| 34 |
are mutually exclusive (can not operate with eachother) and that heimdal |
| 35 |
is what windows uses. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
What this seems to be is a simple case of blockers. So, the quesiton |
| 38 |
is, are you going to be using kerberos in nfs? if not, masking the flag |
| 39 |
may be what works for you (in the short term at least). Longer term it |
| 40 |
sounds like maybe seperate use flags are in order (or something, dunno). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows focused. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
On another note, I can't find bug 231936. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives