On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > -#if defined(WIN32) && !defined(WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER)
>> > -/*
>> > - * MIT Kerberos GSSAPI DLL doesn't properly export the symbols for
>> > MingW
>> > - * that contain the OIDs required. Redefine here, values copied
>> > - * from src/athena/auth/krb5/src/lib/gssapi/generic/gssapi_generic.c
>> > - */
>> > -static const gss_OID_desc GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME_desc =
>> > -{10, (void *) "\x2a\x86\x48\x86\xf7\x12\x01\x02\x01\x02"};
>> > -static GSS_DLLIMP gss_OID GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME =
>> > &GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME_desc;
>> > -#endif
>> > Regarding patch 0003 it may be fine to remove that... Robbie, do you
>> > know how long ago this has been fixed upstream? I'd rather not have
>> > this bit removed if this could impact some users.
>>
>> I double-checked with MIT, and we think it was fixed in 2003 in commit
>> 4ce1f7c3a46485e342d3a68b4c60b76c196d1851 which can be viewed at
>>
>> https://github.com/krb5/krb5/commit/4ce1f7c3a46485e342d3a68b4c60b76c196d1851
>> and the corresponding bug on their bugtracker was
>> http://krbdev.mit.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1666
Thanks for the investigation! It would be interesting to see what at
least narwhal in the buildfarm thinks about that.
> That certainly looks like it fixes is. This was way too long ago for me to
> remember which versions I was using at the time though.
So, this is as well an indication that it would actually be fine :)
> It looks like it was already OK in the MSVC build back then, and only mingw
> was broken. Which makes it even more reasonable that they might've fixed it
> now - or a long time ago.
>
> If it works on reasonably modern mingw, then I suggest pushing it to the
> buildfarm and see what happens. But it definitely needs at least one round
> of building on mingw..
What about giving a spin first to patch 0003 as two different patches?
One to remove this check, and one to improve the error reporting
(which is an improvement in itself). Then we could rebase the rest on
top of it.
--
Michael
