On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:18:57PM +0200, Benjamin Franzke wrote:
2013/10/17 Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
> On (17/10/13 13:59), Benjamin Franzke wrote:
> >2013/10/17 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> On 10/17/2013 07:35 AM, Benjamin Franzke wrote:
> >> > Hi list,
> >> >
> >> > I've tried to use sssd with heimdal, there were some fixes to be
> >> > done. Are you intrested in reviewing and integrating them?
> >> >
> >> > They are available at: https://git.bnfr.net/sssd/log/?h=heimdal-1
> >> > Note: They are on top of other build fixes i've send to the list
> >> > (but thats visible in the log).
> >> >
> >> > This compiles without warnings and passes all make tests. Actually
> >> > i've added alternatives for deprecated (in terms of heimdal)
> >> > kerberos functions to avoid warnings there.
> >> >
> >> > I've tested this in a samba 4 environment (with the sssd-ad
> >> > module).
> >> >
> >> Just for the record, Heimdal support has come up before. Historically,
> >> our answer has been this: "SSSD upstream does not officially support
> >> using SSSD with Heimdal. This is because the SSSD upstream works
> >> closely with the MIT Kerberos upstream to have features that we need
> >> incorporated there."
> >> In the past, we've allowed the community to contribute patches to work
> >> with Heimdal because there are some platforms out there that seem to
> >> prefer it, but the people who have contributed this have a habit of
> >> disappearing. We've always held to the idea that it's not the
> >> responsibility of the core upstream to maintain the Heimdal patches.
> >> As move further along and the IPA and AD providers rely on
> >> ever-increasing MIT-specific features, I think the value of supporting
> >> Heimdal at all upstream continues to decrease.
> >> I'd honestly prefer to propose that SSSD drops its Heimdal support
> >> entirely and stop giving the impression that it might work. If we
> >> don't do this, a secondary option would be to add a new configure flag
> >> for Heimdal usage that makes it clear that Heimdal support is largely
> >> incomplete.
> >> I'd honestly be more interested in taking a samba-like approach here
> >> and making it possible to statically build-in a copy of MIT Kerberos
> >> for those platforms that only have Heimdal (such as the BSDs), since
> >> this would allow those platforms to enjoy all of the advance
> >> functionality that SSSD-with-MIT can offer (such as FreeIPA
> >> cross-realm trusts).
> >> Benjamin: Please do not take this as an attack on you. This is a
> >> long-standing issue upstream and one that just keeps coming up.
> >No problem ;) I understand that position.
> >My main motivation was to be able to build it on my
> >main machine (gentoo) where i have samba4 installed as well.
> >So that i can read the sssd man pages here.
> >Also I think that if you dont want to support heimdal, maybe there should
> >be a configure check
> >that errors out if people try to compile against heimdal.
> Or you can try to update samba4 portage with possibility to compile
> with MIT krb5 :-)
Yes, with samba4 client side, but I wanted DC support, and updating heimdal
support in sssd was easier than trying to do this:
I still think it would be nice to get some Heimdal support in. There was
a user on #sssd asking about Heimdal today which reminded me of this
thread. Also, SSSD is finding its way into more exotic OSs (FreeNAS
Benajmin, are you interested in re-sending the patches?
I think we could also add
1) a configure switch that would make the user explicitly select
2) Add a loud (level 0) DEBUG message that would be printed on
startup and warn the user that Heimdal is not tested by upstream.
Then we could, if we suspected a reported problem is caused by Heimdal
which we can't test on Fedora, just relay the user to his distribution's