* Jim Rees [2005-12-21 17:20:37 -0500]:
I don't know. It's whatever came with OpenBSD 3.6, so it would be at least
a year old.
Heimdal has had krb5-config since at least version 0.5, but OpenBSD's
customised makefile doesn't seem to build it. I checked OpenBSD 3.8,
which has Heimdal 0.6.3
krb5-config is not needed on OpenBSD because Heimdal is installed in a
standard place. All that's needed is to avoid running the MIT krb5-config.
Do you really need aklog when you have Heimdal's afslog?
Not really, but I do like to run the same software on all platforms when I
can.
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
I see the problem. When the code was updated to support both Win64
and Win32 conditionally it looks like some DLLs ended up being Win64 only.
Uninstall the MSI and install the NSIS version
Jeffrey Altman
I just tried the MSI and it
Robbie Foust wrote:
I was actually never prompted to reboot until after the MSI completed
its installation, which surprised me. I fully expected it to prompt me
to reboot after it uninstalled NSIS.
I didn't get a chance to work with it more last night, but I should
today. I'll let you
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Robbie Foust wrote:
I was actually never prompted to reboot until after the MSI completed
its installation, which surprised me. I fully expected it to prompt me
to reboot after it uninstalled NSIS.
I didn't get a chance to work with it more last night, but I should
Anyone built openafs 1.4.0 under 2.6.9-22.ELsmp #1 SMP?
I'm having problems with generating the symbol reference table under
RHEL 4.0 using afsmodname.
rpm's installed fine. On another system the source compiled fine too.
When I attempt to create the Symbol Table I see:
#
Tony Shadwick - OSS Solutions wrote:
That has been the correct procedure according to the documentation
dating back to FreeBSD 4.6 (that's the furthest back I have the
handbook.) :)
Need to ease up the tone, not starting conflict, I really really really
want this to work and work well on
krb5-config is not needed on OpenBSD because Heimdal is installed in a
standard place. All that's needed is to avoid running the MIT krb5-config.
Urrrk. Explain to me, as a software distributor, how exactly I'm
supposed to determine _which_ Kerberos libraries to link against on
OpenBSD? I am
Hello.
We have a few RHEL4 boxes that I want to start installing OpenAFS on,
but I'm having some issues with loading the kernel module. This may be
due to my lack of experience on RedHat, but you never know.
Anyways, the problem is that openafs.org provides a
Read the instructions from rpm -qpi openafs...src.rpm
You want to use rpmbuild --rebuild --target=i686 (assuming you're running
on a 686 and not a 586).
-derek
Quoting Mike Bydalek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello.
We have a few RHEL4 boxes that I want to start installing OpenAFS on,
but I'm
I was speaking of OpenAFS, not OpenBSD/Heimdal in general. It would be nice
to have krb5-config on OpenBSD, but it's not necessary for OpenAFS.
As a distributor of software other than OpenAFS, yes you have a problem.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
Karsten Thygesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in the same situation - I also have a mix of server and client
architectures and FreeBSD (6.0) is the preferred platform for most
things now. This is the showstopper for rolling out OpenAFS in my
organization.
It is really a shame, that OpenAFS
Um, the 1.4 RPMS have no afsmodname... So, like, what RPMS
are you using? You're certainly not using the ones from
openafs.org
-derek
Steven Fishback [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone built openafs 1.4.0 under 2.6.9-22.ELsmp #1 SMP?
I'm having problems with generating the symbol
Note that for x86_64 you probably don't need the --target and you probably
DO want the --define build_modules 1 -- otherwise it'll build the user
space code too, which you might not want.
Does the current README in the RPMS still talk about afsmodname? I
thought I corrected that.
-derek
Tom Fitzgerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I quite like this behavior, and wish the client wouldn't enforce this
beyond what the server does. It lets i access provide semantics like
the Unix sticky bit, or windows' CREATOR OWNER acl entry, which I've
found to be extremely handy sometimes. I
Jeffrey Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Currently we do not have a fs chown but it is on the wish list.
If someone sends me a patch I will gladly include it.
I took a crack at this and realized that the Win32 AFS code is
incredibly disjoint from the code for all other platforms (I was
banging
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And it's directories, not files, for which the implicit ownership
being talked about comes into play.
Okay. Would it be correct to say that the ownership of non-directory
files matters only for the extra permission check (u+rw bits are
checked in
17 matches
Mail list logo
