On Jun 9, 2015, at 11:11 , <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Folks, > > I want to ask especially the folks at inverse, if there is a recommended > configuration with pf 5.1 . > (I mean which distro do YOU recommend, as you do most testing on it at your > place…) > Am I right, that you do use RH or centos at INVERSE? Centos 6.6 would be the most tested platform. > > I do ask, because I think I did try nearly every combination (excluding > RedHat) since January and there wasn’t one that ran without issues. > Yes, I did make the mistake to try pf with 4.x and as I wasn’t live with the > system when the 5.0 came out I thought it would be a good idea to start our > live-life with pf with the new version. Poor me, I even dropped the VM as the > Installation of the 4.x went so well, I didn’t think it could be else with > the 5.x versions. > (YES, I am in programming business, I should have known better… J ) > > If I did understand the posts here right, Louis is doing the packaging? No. I do some work that relates to it but I am not the “dedicated packmeister”. That responsability is shared and depends on the subsystem we’re talking about. > You may allow me to suggest this: > May be it would be helpful to test the pf installation at against “changing” > ADs (not just)INVERSE, because since 5.0 it is a pain in the a.. to get the > pf working against an own AD which is NOT called “INVERSE” (at least for a > dumbhead like me, it seems). “INVERSE” seems/seemed(?) to be hardcoded in > numerous places and neither the krb5.conf, nor the corresponding > winbind/samba config files looked like they should look like, if one compared > them to what the pf documentation says they should – for THAT Linux > distribution (eg. debian). That is an interesting case. Would you please open an issue on github with some of your details? Would you care to share some of your details? E.g. how many and which domains do you use, the contents of your pf.conf stripped of passwords and sensitive information, what were the contents of the problematic krb5.conf? Another PF release is in the pipeline for the near future. This might be easy to fix if we can just reproduce it. > There is no need for n ADs, just two and the second just to make sure, there > are no “INVERSE specifics” hardcoded. The more “rudimentary” the second is, > the easier it is to see, that the “INVERSE” settings are not “templated” for > everyone. > We will definitely look into this. Tests for the next release are ongoing. This will be added to the list to see if we can trigger the same behavior. Regards, -- Louis Munro [email protected] :: www.inverse.ca +1.514.447.4918 x125 :: +1 (866) 353-6153 x125 Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence (www.packetfence.org)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ PacketFence-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
