On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jelmer Vernooij <jel...@debian.org> writes:
I should also note that the usefulness of alternatives for these
(kadmin, ktutil) is less clear to me. The kadmin and ktutil command-line
interfaces are quite but not exactly similar.
(MIT's k5srvutil is a shell script that calls the unqualified name
'kadmin'. Hilarity ensues when it is /usr/local/bin/k5srvutil and there
is a /usr/bin/kadmin earlier in the path.)
The ktutil is quite different, yes. (It would be nice if the MIT version
would support the Heimdal command-line interface, since it's far more
useful than the MIT version is.)
If you wanted to write up a summary of what sorts of things that would
entail, we would at least talk about it. There are a lot of things the
MIT ktutil doesn't do that it would be nice to have, but I don't think
there's a real plan for improving it, at the moment.
kadmin also isn't the same between the two: the MIT kadmin can't talk to a
Heimdal server and the Heimdal one can only do a few operations against an
MIT server. I'm not sure alternatives make sense for that.
It would be really nice to be able to co-install the basic clients,
though, which makes me think that the more administrator-oriented tools
(kadmin and ktutil) might make sense to split off into a separate package
that continues to conflict.
Right.
That's why I was mentioning the other tools -- it didn't seem like having
alternatives for somethings would help if the packages would still
conflict on other tools.
-Ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org