Hello All, I've been trying to test the CAS module for guacamole. Once I login to the CAS page, I'm redirected to the Guacamole server but the page gets stuck in an Infinite loop. I believe this is because the page repeatedly queries the CAS server with which I have already Authenticated.
Also, I have not provided any Connection information ( For RDP connectionn) anywhere. I couldn't find any documentation so not sure what I'm missing. Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks Regards Kaushik Srinivasan On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Mike Jumper <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to begin the discussion of scope for the 0.9.13-incubating > release. Issues currently tagged for 0.9.13 can be found here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > 3D%20Guacamole%20AND% > 20fixVersion%20%3D%200.9.13-incubating > > There are quite a few changes already complete, including the > recently-merged support for CAS (can anyone confirm to what degree this has > already been tested?). > > I still have to write some documentation for GUACAMOLE-292 (user profile > support). Other than that, only the following two issues are open but > tagged for 0.9.13: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-168 (support for X.Org) > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-197 (support for RADIUS) > > This brings the questions: > > 1) Should we wait for the X.Org code to be documented and merged before > 0.9.13? > 2) Should we wait for the RADIUS support (which Nick has completed) to be > reviewed and merged before 0.9.13? > 3) Are there other changes not tagged for 0.9.13 which are important enough > to warrant expanding scope? > > The main things holding back my progress on #1 and #2 above are finding the > time to document the X.Org code and to re-review and test the RADIUS code. > Regardless of how slowly/quickly those can be done, we need to weigh the > benefit of having those changes against the additional testing surface and > delay in releasing the other completed changes. I would lean more on the > size of reducing scope, but both of these changes have already been delayed > at least once. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > - Mike >
