Barring objections, I plan to commit Kerberosless builds (see below)
Sunday, 07 Dec 2003 20:00:00 -0600. I have not heard a peep on
tech-install or current-users. This seems to be in tech-toolchain's
department.

Dave

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:09:47PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> I have put new patches for Kerberosless builds in kd0 and kd0.tgz at
> http://che.ojctech.com/~dyoung/public/.  You need both files.  If you
> put MKKERBEROS=no in /etc/mk.conf, then both 4 and 5 are left out of
> the build and the file lists. If you put MKKERBEROS4=no in /etc/mk.conf,
> only 4 is left out of the build and lists.
> 
> The patches are more complicated than I anticipated.  The reason was
> that there were modules that thought they knew how to compile with
> MKKERBEROS=yes MKKERBEROS4=no or with MKKERBEROS=no MKKERBEROS4=yes,
> but they could not. I fixed makefiles and sources as necessary so that
> the MKKERBEROS=yes MKKERBEROS4=no case would work. I eliminated the
> MKKERBEROS=no MKKERBEROS4=yes case.  I asked some folks about this,
> first. Thor (tls@) and Love (lha@) believe very strongly that a Kerberos
> 4-only build was a loathsome thing not worthy supporting.  Neither Love
> nor Tracy (tracy@) think that a Kerberos 4-only build is possible.
> However, there are makefiles and source files that both indicate *someone*
> thought a 4-only build was possible (maybe even desirable). Speak up:
> if these patches go in, 4-only builds will break worse than already.

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933