Anyone knows/remembers why did we choose heimdal over MIT? I assume there were some reasons behind this decision (besides "let's do this in a different way"), however I'm not sure if they are still valid (e.g. missing features might have been added, someone might have taken over abandoned maintaining etc.)
The only note I could find is krb5.spec header, so I'm worried that current state is drived by inertia only, as every mainstream I peek uses MIT. Heimdal OTOH requires some patching like: http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-pl/2012-October/155947.html http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.sssd.devel/7886 I need my KDC to interact with non-PLD MIT-based Linux systems (fortunatelly without any samba) and I prefer to have MIT password policies (LDAP integration to use ppolicy requires non-reliable scripting anyway). -- Tomasz Pala <go...@pld-linux.org> _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en