Your message dated Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:39:13 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#175316: ITP: libkrb4-perl -- Perl extensions for Kerberos 4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Jan 2003 16:55:33 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan 04 10:55:32 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from bonci.ne.client2.attbi.com (starlite.bonci.ne.client2.attbi.com)
[24.218.17.202]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18Ura8-0004Bj-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 10:55:32 -0600
Received: from jaybonci by starlite.bonci.ne.client2.attbi.com with local (Exim
3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18UnhQ-0005pt-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 07:46:48 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jay Bonci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ITP: libkrb4-perl -- Perl extensions for Kerberos 4
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.10
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 07:46:47 -0500
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Jay Bonci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using "From" header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0
tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,PGP_SIGNATURE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: *
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-01-04
Severity: wishlist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Package name : libkrb4-perl
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Jeff Horwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/author/JHORWITZ/Krb4-1.1/
* License : GPL/Artistic
Description : Perl extensions for Kerberos 4
- From the CPAN page:
Authen::Krb4 is an object oriented extension to Perl 5 which implements
several user-level Kerberos 4
functions. With this module, you can create Kerberized clients and servers
written in Perl. It is compatible with both
AFS and MIT Kerberos.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux starlite 2.4.19-686 #1 Mon Nov 18 23:59:03 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Fte3ZNh5D+C4st4RAloCAJ9dlbbMfjW2gu/PsfeMUeNf4h96VACfaWkr
zfHRbvmujQyGdrhu9deTnoY=
=k7s6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 175316-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Jan 2003 08:47:45 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 06 02:47:44 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from manifestresearch.com (server1.manifestresearch.com)
[64.39.15.228]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18VSvA-000050-00; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:47:44 -0600
Received: from starlite.bonci.ne.client2.attbi.com (bonci.ne.client2.attbi.com
[24.218.17.202])
(authenticated (0 bits))
by server1.manifestresearch.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
h068fpA02394;
Mon, 6 Jan 2003 02:41:51 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:39:13 -0500
From: Jay Bonci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#175316: ITP: libkrb4-perl -- Perl extensions for Kerberos 4
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.8 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.+ASRPFY(lwul,5"
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.1 required=5.0
tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,
PGP_SIGNATURE_2,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
--=.+ASRPFY(lwul,5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve,
As fate would have it, it doesn't build correctly with the libraries in
debian (I tried a few different ones). So I think we can agree to
simply forgo this ITP. The other krb5 package is all ready.
Thanks for the guidance.
--jay
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:36:55 -0600
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jay,
>
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 09:14:06PM -0500, Jay Bonci wrote:
>
> > I thought about this very same thing before putting this up for
> > packaging. My reasons are as follows:
>
> > a) I am working on a project that wants krb5 support, and I figured
> > I could option krb4 support as well
>
> > b) Debian already has a lot of libraries and support for krb4
> > clients. it is legacy and this is not a reason in and of itself, but
> > it is compelling(in my mind) for inclusion in the archives.
>
> > c) The packages have not changed in a year or two on CPAN which says
> > to me that they are pretty much FINAL. With not a lot of code
> > delta, I don't expect them to be a burden on myself (or
> > theoretically the QA team or a future maintainer). I don't know how
> > Debian feels about including the "low hanging fruit", as I'm new at
> > this, but I'd like your opinion on it.
>
> > Also, as an option, since they are by the same author, I could
> > package them together, but my gut instinct says to have them
> > separately.
>
> The following text is from the (AFAIK, still a draft) Debian Kerberos
> policy, which I agree with:
>
> If you are considering enabling Kerberos version 4 support, you
> should do so only if users of your package are in Kerberos version 4
> environments or if users are choosing to build from source rather
> than use your package because of the lack of Kerberos version 4
> support. There are many users of Kerberos version 4 POP, IMAP, CVS
> and Ssh, so if your package implements one of these protocols it is
> probably worth enabling Kerberos version 4.
>
> IOW, since Kerberos 4 has known security weaknesses and is a dying,
> non-standard technology, you should only implement Kerberos 4 in
> packages if there is a specific demand for it from users.
>
> As for this being a low-maintenance package, in the long term, I
> believe the maintenance cost of a package with no users (which is how
> this package sounds to me at present) is always too high.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
>
--
Jay Bonci | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG: E0B8B2DE| 562B 35DC BE8D 7802 DB31 6423 64D8 790F E0B8 B2DE
--=.+ASRPFY(lwul,5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+GQh0ZNh5D+C4st4RAl80AJ9+JuCcS+VSpDXV/wyUDmp07gUJWQCfVmsZ
Leg5lKoxmuyvn/eJOIQU+j0=
=rA51
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=.+ASRPFY(lwul,5--
