On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:32:26AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:46:37AM +0100, Fridrich Strba wrote: >> On 12/12/11 08:14, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>> This also means that by our "we have to build everything we ship" >>> rule, we have to internalise, according to my first quick survey: >>> - MIT Kerberos: >>> - Kerberos for Windows: that's not part of the OS -> internalise >>> (http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/dist/index.html#kfw-3.2) >> Do we really really need this on Windows? > It depends what value we give to "really". So, I asked on the PostgreSQL devs mailing list. Briefly the answer is that MIT Kerberos on Windows is bitrotten, unmaintained and a pain in the backside: open security bugs will likely not be fixed soon, etc. Other software in the PostgreSQL ecosystem have stopped linking against it. As to what feature is lost: - On Windows XP, any kind of decent crypto in the context of Kerberos authentication. - On Windows 7, the system Kerberos is actually quite OK. So, all in all, we better *not* link against MIT Kerberos on Microsoft Windows. That is our current situation, no change needed, just for your information (& vindication). -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
