> > I don't remember any agreement to remove krb4 in 7.5. Am I wrong?
>
> My recollection is we had at least one person still using it, who
> was apparently unworried by the security issues.
Peter Eisentraut <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305161542510.2224-100000@peter.localdomain>:
As long as people are still using it, I see no reason. Just the other
day someone reported that he was trying to get it to work in his
environment.
Tom Lane <27165.1053097081@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
I wouldn't mind pulling it from 7.5, if the 7.4 docs say we are going
to and no one complains.
> While I think deprecating krb4 is a good idea, I don't see any need
> to remove it. It's not costing us any maintenance effort to leave
> it there, is it?
Bruce Momjian <200306010352.h513qsS05070@candle.pha.pa.us>:
Did we decide we _didn't_ want to remove krb4? Removal seems like a
good idea to me, but I am just checking if the consensus was to keep
it. I think someone said it was OK in a closed environment or
something. Maybe we need to document that it is not recommended.
Bruce Momjian <200306020235.h522Zs320377@candle.pha.pa.us>:
True, but it does bloat our distribution. I had to work around its
need for gethostname() while I was coding the Win32 port, so it
doesn't stay around with zero maintance.
*shrug* It's not possible to upgrade from krb4 to krb5 by running a
simple conversion program, but there is a krb425d daemon that
exchanges krb4 tickets for krb5 tickets which makes upgrading more
less painful. It's not like users of krb4 are left without any
recourse or documentation for getting krb4 to work with PgSQL. MIT
has documented how to do this quite well and has been pushing for this
to happen for at least 3-4 years now.
http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/krb5-1.3/krb5-1.3/doc/krb425.html#Introduction
When the BSDs dumped support for krb4 from the base, I don't recall a
single email from someone complaining as almost everyone who uses krb
uses hiemdal or MIT krb5. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
