Gabor Gombas <gomba...@gmail.com> writes: > Exactly - that's why making the KDC package Conflicts: with the other > implementation would be a quick fix. There aren't many KDC > implementations, and I think Shishi does not use kadmin (I'm not sure, I > never used it), so maintaining such Conflicts: does not sound like a > big burden.
I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, changing heimdal-kdc to use kadmin.heimdal instead of kadmin would be easy. In fact, maybe I should do that anyway. But having a kadmin around I think is confusing. It could point to MIT or Heimdal and may very well do the unexpected thing. i.e. you might be running a script that expects to update the MIT KDC, but it tries to update the Heimdal KDC instead. One option would be to have the two kdc conflict. The kadmin would only ever point to one implementation. Another option would perhaps be to delete the kadmin update-alternative entirely, and just have the kadmin.heimdal. There is no conflict, and if forces you to be explicity to request what you want. What do people think of this solution? -- Brian May @ Debian
