On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 23:46 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Thus the patch below. Anyone got a better suggestion for how to handle
> it? A patch to actually use this facility in the NTLM authenticator will
> follow, of course...
>
> One alternative approach might be to to stop letting the authent
I'm working on single-sign-on support for NTLM, where we don't actually
*know* the password, but just delegate the whole challenge/response
thing to a helper program.
That helper program is /usr/bin/ntlm_auth; the only current
implementation is the Samba one which works when you've logged into the
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Although presumably there will be 3.01 and 3.02 releases so those
> branches aren't *quite* as orphaned as 2.32 yet :)
Yeah, 3.0.1 at least per the GNOME schedule, although we've been doing
at least one additional stable update ever since
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:28 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 18:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I hope that eventually, we might be permitted to use the "real"
> > gnome-2-32 branch in GNOME git for this, rather than having to do it
> > elsewhere. If that branch is a "dead
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 18:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I hope that eventually, we might be permitted to use the "real"
> gnome-2-32 branch in GNOME git for this, rather than having to do it
> elsewhere. If that branch is a "dead end" and would otherwise be unused,
> then there's no harm in le
Although the Evolution developers have moved on to better things and
consider Evolution 2.32 to be a dead end, there are distributions still
trying to ship this "dead end". It is the latest stable release of
Evolution, after all.
Rather than all the distributors working separately to keep track of
