[SCM] s3-build: expliticly require gssapi for HAVE_KRB5 and remove HAVE_GSSAPI

[simo]

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 07:25 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote: 
> On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 08:52 -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 06:14 +0100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > s3-build: expliticly require gssapi for HAVE_KRB5 and remove
> > > HAVE_GSSAPI
> > 
> > Sorry, but I do not get why you are using the wrong definition here.
> > You do depend on GSSAPI not on krb5 raw libraries, so I would expect you
> > drop the HAVE_KRB5 and instead require only HAVE_GSSAPI.
> > 
> > What's up with doing the reverse ?
> 
> As you have noticed, I was trying to follow up on our discussion about
> the number of different variables used for this.
> 
> For this patch, it was simply the smaller change.  As you know, many any
> of the our blocks of GSSAPI-dependent code are already protected with
> HAVE_KRB5, because it is the only GSSAPI mech we really support, and for
> some time now we have only supported krb5 with GSSAPI.
> 
> I'm sorry for not checking with you on the details of which name you
> preferred, and I'm happy to sweep over the code base and change it all
> to HAVE_GSSAPI if you like. 

I was just wondering why you went one way rather than the other.
HAVE_GSSAPI seemed the technically correct one, and we may even have to
go the extra mile, and define HAVE_GSAPI_KRB5 given we do depend on
stuff in the gssapi_krb5.h extensions.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>