Excerpts from Emmanuel Benisty's message of 2010-11-16 12:19:16 +0100:
> yeah, wrong list...
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, RedShift wrote:
> >> Someone (which shall remain nameless unless privately asked) on the
> >> bugtracker
On Friday 19 of November 2010 21:44:13 Allan McRae wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the mailx package and was wondering what we should do
> with it.
>
> We grab the package source for "mailx-8.1.1-fixed" on
> ftp.archlinux.org... but I have no idea what is "fixed" about it and we
> still patch
I would be also for inclusion of MIT krb5.
And about samba, at least from my experiences from RHEL6 (where we use
krb1.8.3), there is client part of samba4 and server samba3.something
Zbyshek
On 19.11.2010 13:56, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 19/11/10 22:29, Kaiting Chen wrote:
>> Does anyone kno
>
> Does the current samba (3.x) even build with MIT kerberos? I am fairly
> definite that samba4 does not...
>
I believe Samba 3 does but Samba 4 does not. Apparently Samba 4 includes
OpenLDAP and Heimdal internally. Which is kind of stupid when you consider
that people are running FedoraDS, Apa
On 19/11/10 22:29, Kaiting Chen wrote:
Does anyone know if MIT kerberos is a drop-in replacement for Heimdal? It
seems more actively developed and more featureful than Heimdal these days.
I'm pretty sure cryptographic export as munitions is no longer an issue for
the US. Perhaps it would even mak
Does anyone know if MIT kerberos is a drop-in replacement for Heimdal? It
seems more actively developed and more featureful than Heimdal these days.
I'm pretty sure cryptographic export as munitions is no longer an issue for
the US. Perhaps it would even make sense to try to transition to MIT?
--Ka
- Original message -
> But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without
> compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a
> new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you
> are also saying: "this program will probably n
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:27, Harlequin wrote:
> The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad.
> You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will
> probably not work. We take no responsibility"
Then step up and do something. Make this repository. It would make no
diffe
But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without
compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a new
"unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also
saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility
9 matches
Mail list logo
