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:
pgp80ZyduJKhm.pgp
Description: PGP signature