"Dr. Thomas Orgis" <thomas.orgis%uni-hamburg.de@localhost> writes: > Actually, is it sensible to only condition the krb5.h or krb5/krb5.h > decision on Linux/Darwin OS? Could one rewrite this to check for both? > > Or rather, thinking a bit more … isn't > > test $(/usr/bin/krb5-config --vendor) = Massachusetts Institute of Technology > > better than grepping around in headers? Is that present in old > versions? Or the version output … > > $ /data/pkg/bin/krb5-config --version > heimdal 1.5.3 > $ /usr/bin/krb5-config --version > Kerberos 5 release 1.17 > > (Heimdal doesn't offer --vendor.) Probably you are right that this could use revamping. I think we tend to be shy about that as it can break things on platforms we aren't testing on. > It might be more the pkgsrc way to test for platform and use known > properties of those. But this falls flat when your check is just > ‘Linux’ without any vintage attached. Using krb5-config would work > ‘anywhere’. I am not sure platform/known is the way, if it's easy to check. I wonder how long krb5-config has been around. 99.9% you know this already, but keep in mind that heimdal ships krb5-config too (and of course this has to not match heimdal). > But if we are going for minimal changes, at least any non-ancient linux > will have mit-krb5 version 1.5+ and so my patch works in practice and > is an improvement. But it doesn't feel entirely correct. Agreed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature