Re: Question about removal of cyrus-sasl2-mit
Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 12:45 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> My guess is that it would be better for the new package to take care of
>> it, since otherwise we're carrying around an old source package as well
>> as a transitional binary package. That seems unnecessary.
> The only thing that scares me is the NEW processing for the transitional
> package, which would be avoided by using the old source package to
> create the transitional binary package. This is probably an irrational
> fear. :)
As I recall (and this surprised me too), if you add a transitional package
that matches the name of a binary package currently provided by another
source package, there's no NEW approval required.
I suppose it makes sense in that NEW is technically required for fixing
the overrides file, and that's not needed in that case.
>> BTW, are we just assuming no one uses the krb4 modules any more, or are
>> they now provided by some other package? (It may not be a bad
>> assumption that no one uses them; popcon says there are 34 installs but
>> no votes.)
> They aren't provided by any other package. If I remember correctly, I
> couldn't get cyrus-sasl2 to build Kerberos 4 modules. The API has
> changed somewhere along the way, and the function prototypes aren't the
> same anymore. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember from a year or
> so back.
Oh, okay.
I don't think it's any great loss. However, you may want to make the new
libsasl2-2 conflict with the old krb4 module package, since I'm guessing
that the old modules aren't going to work with the new library.
> (Digging around some old build logs, I find this example:
> kerberos4.c:247: error: incompatible type for argument 4 of
> 'krb_mk_priv')
> If someone can help get the krb4 modules to build in cyrus-sasl2, then
> we could completely replace cyrus-sasl2-mit and provide an upgrade path
> to both Kerberos 4 and Kerberos 5 users.
I could probably make it work, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
But it's possible Sam will disagree with me; I don't know the history of
why the krb4 modules were added originally and if the original reason may
still apply.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: