On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Michael Mol <[email protected]> wrote: > (I really don't have time to actively participate on this list right > now, but I believe that if I bring it up on b.g.o, I'll be directed > here, so...) > > So I'm playing with net-fs/samba-4.0.3, AD and kerberos, and tried to > enable kerberos system-wide on my server. > > No joy, as net-fs/nfs-utils has an explicit dependency on > app-crypt/mit-krb5 (bug 231936) and net-fs/samba-4.0.3 depends on > app-crypt/heimdal (for reasons noted in bug 195703, comment 25).
I'm not familiar with anyone using Kerberos on Gentoo. I use it on Ubuntu; but we do not use it with Samba (or at least, if we do, I am not aware of it.) > > Questions: > > 1) If upstream isn't going to support mit-krb5, then use of samba-4.0.3 > and kerberos demands that things with explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 > either be fixed or not used at all. I'm fairly sure samba supports either kerberos implementation; is there something that makes you think differently? > > I'm the first activity on bug 231936 in two years...could someone please > look into that one? > > 2) Is it possible to slot mit-krb5 and heimdal instead of pulling them > through a virtual? My suspicion is "no", but I don't know enough about > kerberos to say whether or not it would work, even as a hack. > I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of the library to be installed in one ROOT? I would not advocate this approach. You should strive to have only one kerberos implementation on a given machine. > I'm sure explicit dependencies on mit-krb5 and heimdal will continue to > crop up, so (and forgive the nausea this might cause) it might help to > slot mit and heimdal, and have virtual/krb5 depend on the presence of at > least one. > It is likely that explicit dependencies are wrong, and are just bugs. -A
