On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 02:38:08PM +0200, Love Hörnquist Åstrand wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:11:18PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > >> So, if this is correct (my guess is you are correct), does this mean > >> this bug is an upstream bug in Heimdal and not a bug in openssl? > >> I read bug report #333101 yesterday > >> <URL:http://bugs.debian.org/333101/>, but it didn't convince me it is > >> not an openssl bug, as this problem didn't occur with the previous > >> version of openssl. > > No, I think this is something we should fix in openssl. As > > general rule, each include file should include everything it > > needs. But I'll talk to upstream about it. > I don't think that is generally true. Headerfiles should be allows to have > requsites. They should be allowed to have *dependencies*, but these should generally be #include'd by the header itself rather than requiring consumers of the header to include other headers first. So I agree with Kurt that this should be fixed in openssl. > Or just stop using Kerberos 4. A tantalizing suggestion. I've wished several times already for the krb4 source package to go away, but it's still here. >:) The only packages in Debian which build-depend on it are heimdal, and cyrus-sasl2, so it's obviously not *widely* used, but I don't have any idea how much people might still be depending on krb4 compatibility support in Heimdal. Are other vendors still shipping Heimdal w/ krb4 support enabled? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
