Daniel Pocock: > On 04/02/17 10:50, Niels Thykier wrote: >> [...] >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for bringing this up. >> >> Is this migration from rpc.svcgssd to gssproxy so important (release >> critical) that it ought to be granted an exception? And if so, why is it >> that important (despite #848306 not being release critical)? > > Upstream is not really supporting rpc.svcgssd any more, they actually > disabled it in the build so people can still have it as a transitional > measure in stretch. > > People shouldn't be using it in any new installations. Offering them > gssproxy is a very sensible thing to do. > > Regards, > > Daniel >
Ok, follow up questions: * Do you have an upstream reference to the state of rpc.svcgssd? * Can we provide both rpc.svcgssd and gssproxy in Debian (with the admin choosing) or is it an "xor"? * If this package is unblocked, are there any changes needed in nfs-common needed to support gssproxy? (source upload, binNMU or "just works with no further changes") Thanks, ~Niels
