Niels Thykier writes:
> Ok - as I understand it, what we are dealing with here is:
>
> * systemd: You can get gssproxy + NFS and it "just works(tm)" if
>you install gssproxy. Otherwise you get svcgssd + NFS.
>(This is how I understood Neil Brown)
> * sysvinit: Business as usual either
Robbie Harwood:
> Niels Thykier writes:
>
>> NeilBrown:
>>> On Sun, Mar 05 2017, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>>
>>> The systemd unit files are designed so that svcgssd will only be
>>> started if gssproxy didn't start - and gssproxy is tried first.
>>>
>>> If you use something other than systemd, simil
Niels Thykier writes:
> NeilBrown:
>> On Sun, Mar 05 2017, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>> The systemd unit files are designed so that svcgssd will only be
>> started if gssproxy didn't start - and gssproxy is tried first.
>>
>> If you use something other than systemd, similar logic would be
>> need
NeilBrown:
> On Sun, Mar 05 2017, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> Yes, they can.
> The systemd unit files are designed so that svcgssd will only be started
> if gssproxy didn't start - and gssproxy is tried first.
>
> If you use something other than systemd, similar logic would be needed.
>
On Sun, Mar 05 2017, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 05/03/17 19:42, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:58:00 + Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Daniel Pocock:
[...]
Upstream is not really supporting rpc.svcgssd any more, they actually
disabled it in the build so people can
On 05/03/17 19:42, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:58:00 + Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Daniel Pocock:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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 st
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:58:00 + Niels Thykier wrote:
> Daniel Pocock:
> > [...]
> >
> > 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
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 b
On 04/02/17 10:50, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> CC'ing the maintainer of nfs-common and the reporter of #848306.
>
> Robbie Harwood:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: unblock
>>
>> Please unblock p
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #852395 [release.debian.org] unblock: gssproxy/0.5.1-2
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
852395: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852395
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
CC'ing the maintainer of nfs-common and the reporter of #848306.
Robbie Harwood:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
>
> Please unblock package gssproxy
>
> gssproxy has been 10 days in uns
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package gssproxy
gssproxy has been 10 days in unstable, and allowing it to migrate will fix
bug#848306 (severity: important) in nfs-common. gssproxy is a new package in
unst
12 matches
Mail list logo
