On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:41:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I gather that XFree86 for Debian is not compiled with Kerberos support? [...]
Historical reasons and inertia. Way back in the day, crypto wasn't in main, and having XFree86 depend on libraries outside of non-us to build and work would have meant putting XFree86 itself into non-us. Since crypto has gone into main, the primary reason is lack of anyone with the right combination of clues, will, and working patches. > Before I go galloping off to recompile it, I should probably ask if > this is appropriate? Why isn't XFree86 available w/ Kerberos? No good reason; please do engage in this experiment and report your findings back to this list if you'd like. I personally have no objection to including Kerberos support in XFree86, and I doubt anyone else does either. If they do, now's the time to speak up. :) > I'm not the X guru I'd like to be ... I want to authorize xclients to > connect to a remote xserver, provided they are run by the same person > who's running the server. I have a working Kerberos setup and read > about the "MIT-KERBEROS-5" security mechanism in the man pages. It's > not like I've used this mechanism before ... I thought I'd give it a > go. Not much help from Google. Can you spot any problems already? I tried to educate myself on this a few years ago, but failed for the same reasons you apparently did. There's just not many people who both use anything more than MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 or XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1, and have documented their experiences publicly enough for Google to snag them. -- G. Branden Robinson | People with power understand Debian GNU/Linux | exactly one thing: violence. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Noam Chomsky http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
