On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:40:53AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > I'm starting to take a look at the heimdal package review: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001 > > heimdal is an alternative kerberos implementation to MIT-Kerberos. I'm > assuming we will want to explore the use of alternative to allow coexistence. > From what I know about heimdal I think alternatives sounds correct. It's something that's setup at the system level, not on an individual preference so that seems to fit the way alternatives works. > One trick part it for EL6 support. I'm assuming that there really is no way > we'll get alternatives support into the RHEL6 krb5 package. In that case is > it acceptable to fall back to the /usr/heimdal/ prefix for the package? > From a fedora packaging guideline pov, no... But EPEL is allowed to make rules that supplement/override the packaging guidelines so you can ask the other epel contributors if an override is justified in this case. (Fedora packaging guidelines might be able to justify, say %{_libdir}/heimdal... I'd need to know a lot more about how the two kerberos implementations interact to say for sure). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpTGVKBR2QXW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
