Subject: Re: checkflist/mkflist w/ MKKERBEROS=no
To: None <greywolf@starwolf.com,>
From: David Young <dyoung@pobox.com>
List: current-users
Date: 11/27/2003 23:09:47
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 06:58:20PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:07:42PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> > 1. flist should be generated a section at a time during "make build".
> 
> There seems to be a consensus that this is pretty desirable. In the mean
> time, I have implemented #2 (below) for the MKKERBEROS{4,}=no cases:
> 
> > 2. flist should really consist of several sub-flists which are
> >    concatenated after "make build" is done, consistent with any
> >    conditionals in /etc/mk.conf.  Similarly, any checkflist done against
> >    the base flist will fail; any checkflist done agains any of the
> >    sub-flists (conditional) will only issue a warning but not fail the
> >    build.
> 
> For MKKERBEROS=no builds, I have attached patches to the set lists and
> scripts which omit Kerberos files from the set lists. This suppresses
> checkflists complaints.

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.

Dave

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