GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 728879
make it possible to build without kerberos
Last modified: 2014-04-24 22:30:12 UTC
Created attachment 275053 [details] [review] add --without-kerberos Hi. This patch makes it possible to pass --without-kerberos to configure so that the account panel is built without realm support. Note that the default behavior is unchanged, configure will fail if kerberos is not found unless we explicitely disable it. The patch seems to do the trick for me and we like to hear some comments. Thanks :-)
As I've said many times, this isn't a bag of bits. Unless this library isn't available on some platforms that GNOME supports, I'm not going to add more toggles for panels, and even less for panel functionality.
(In reply to comment #1) > As I've said many times, this isn't a bag of bits. Unless this library isn't > available on some platforms that GNOME supports, I'm not going to add more > toggles for panels, and even less for panel functionality. Sorry I was not aware of that. Is there a list of things you object to? It would have saved me the trouble of working on it and reading your rant. While I do work mostly on OpenBSD in this case I have a need for it on Linux. There are some situations where Kerberos cannot be included in the area I work in. I'll just keep it as a local patch.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > As I've said many times, this isn't a bag of bits. Unless this library isn't > > available on some platforms that GNOME supports, I'm not going to add more > > toggles for panels, and even less for panel functionality. > > Sorry I was not aware of that. Is there a list of things you object to? It > would have saved me the trouble of working on it and reading your rant. My "rant"? > While I do work mostly on OpenBSD in this case I have a need for it on Linux. > There are some situations where Kerberos cannot be included in the area I work > in. How come? > I'll just keep it as a local patch.
> > Sorry I was not aware of that. Is there a list of things you object to? It > > would have saved me the trouble of working on it and reading your rant. > > My "rant"? Well I took it in the way that you have enough of people bothering you with such modifications. Sorry if I misunderstood. > > While I do work mostly on OpenBSD in this case I have a need for it on Linux. > > There are some situations where Kerberos cannot be included in the area I work > > in. > > How come? Because of corporate legal and security policies... I just though that since Kerberos is optional in all other GNOME modules that check for it, this patch would make sense.
(In reply to comment #4) > > > While I do work mostly on OpenBSD in this case I have a need for it on Linux. > > > There are some situations where Kerberos cannot be included in the area I work > > > in. > > > > How come? > > Because of corporate legal and security policies... > I just though that since Kerberos is optional in all other GNOME modules that > check for it, this patch would make sense. I'd like to know why compiling this with Kerberos support would be against any "corporate legal and security policies". Furthermore, if this was a widely adopted policy, we'd need a way to disable Kerberos support at run-time, because binary distributions then would go against this policy.
> I'd like to know why compiling this with Kerberos support would be against any > "corporate legal and security policies". Furthermore, if this was a widely > adopted policy, we'd need a way to disable Kerberos support at run-time, > because binary distributions then would go against this policy. Sorry but this is information I am not allowed to disclose which is the reason I did not brought it up in my initial message (it's a bit stupid to say that I need this but that I cannot say why). We do re-build several packages, having it upstream (like it is for evolution-data-server for e.g.) would have been easier and more consistent with the rest of GNOME which was the initial intent of that ticket.
And I can't really base my decisions around a policy that I can't understand (and won't be given any details into). Feel free to drop me a mail privately or to my work address if the level of secrecy is low enough for those communications. Otherwise, the answer in comment 1 will have to stand for now.