David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:30:27PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > chat/zephyr > > > > > > I believe MIT is still using zephyr, and that it's been using krb5 for > > > a long time. So I think that should be updated instead. So feel free > > > to mark BROKEN="no krb4 support in pkgsrc", or I can, pending an update > > > to more modern zephyr. > > > > I looked at zephyr. The current version won't build without krb4. The > > new version is 3.1.2 from github. That purports to build without krb4, > > but it needed libss, which pkgsrc only provides in krb4. > > > > So I think it's too hard to support zephyr, relative to how much people > > care. I withdrawn my request to spare it from deletion. > > Why don't we mark it BROKEN now (for this coming branch), delete krb4 > whenever, and remove it after the next branch if nobody fixes it? I > don't expect anyone will but you never know. Right now, with krb4, I think it works. So it's really marking-broken/deleting when krb4 is removed. It seems we are leaning to removal rather than marking BROKEN for things that aren't super likely to get fixed, because the history is there anyway and in this case the new upstream version of zephyr has changed a fair bit anyway. But I really don't have a strong opinion.
Attachment:
pgpbqc_qJpWcO.pgp
Description: PGP signature