On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:19:07PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) [051111 21:47]: > > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > > Well, my question is simple: should I push packages to go away from > > > kerberos-4-support? Unless there is a good reason to do not, I would > > > start to push into that direction. And of course, feel free to send me > > > things that need to be changed. As usual, the maintainers have a special > > > say in everything (that's why I Cced them). :) > > I think it's time to encourage maintainers to start thinking about this, > > as the next major release of MIT Kerberos is also going to drop Kerberos > > v4 support as of May of 2006. Kerberos 4 support will still be there in > > the MIT package until at least that time, and there are some sites who are > > still in the process of transitioning away, so I wouldn't want to see too > > many things disappear too quickly, but it's certainly time to think about > > how to drop it over time. > You think that December 2006 (the expected release time of etch) is too > early to drop Kerberos 4? Note that dropping the krb4 source package does not require dropping Kerberos 4 support from the MIT Kerberos packages, either; and as the MIT Kerberos version doesn't seem to have any RC bugs at present regarding the status of its Kerberos 4 support, there doesn't seem to be any reason to cut it before upstream does. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature