On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:01 PM Jeffrey Altman
wrote:
> For Heimdal, the term "slave" is part of the both the iprop process name
> and command line switches for the iprop_master. Changing these could
> adversely impact end user deployments that are not expecting their
> configuration scripts and
On 6/10/2020 5:26 PM, Nate Coraor (n...@bx.psu.edu) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:04 PM Greg Hudson wrote:
>
>> MIT krb5 switched to using "replica" for non-primary KDCs as of release
>> 1.17. This was an easy change technically, as the old term was only
>> used in a user-visible way in doc
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:04 PM Greg Hudson wrote:
> MIT krb5 switched to using "replica" for non-primary KDCs as of release
> 1.17. This was an easy change technically, as the old term was only
> used in a user-visible way in documentation and in the name of one
> profile relation. The pull re
On 6/10/20 3:48 PM, Nate Coraor wrote:
> I'd like to propose that an effort be made to replace master/slave
> terminology in MIT and Heimdal implementations at some future milestone.
MIT krb5 switched to using "replica" for non-primary KDCs as of release
1.17. This was an easy change technically,
Hi all,
I'd like to propose that an effort be made to replace master/slave
terminology in MIT and Heimdal implementations at some future milestone. I
suspect this would be a fairly large undertaking, but hopefully it could be
done incrementally and in a largely backwards compatible way. For exampl
