[PROPOSAL] Require builtin or system krb5 libs

[Jeremy Allison]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 02:36:49PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 09:30 -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 20:58 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote: 
> > > Back in October, I wrote the the list suggesting that we should adopt an
> > > explicit policy that we require at least some level of Kerberos support
> > > to build Samba:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 21:03 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I would actually like us to consider if there are systems that we care
> > > > about without krb5-devel, and which cannot use the waf build.  If we
> > > > could always expect at least some kind of Kerberos library (internal or
> > > > system heimdal from the waf build, or any system from autoconf), we
> > > > could make our code much simpler in parts.
> > > 
> > > I would like to make that a firm proposal.  For me at least, Samba both
> > > 3.5.11 and current master do not compile without krb5-devel.  As such,
> > > it seems no testing is done on systems without a kerberos library, and
> > > our users have not been inconvenienced by this requirement. 
> > > 
> > > Therefore, as we have a way to build Samba without a system kerberos
> > > (the waf build), I would like us to require that users either build with
> > > waf, or build with a system krb5-devel.
> > > 
> > > Doing so would remove a lot of dead, untested #ifndef HAVE_KRB5 stub
> > > functions, and make our code easier to follow and simpler to develop. 
> > > 
> > > What do others think?
> > 
> > I am ok in always requireing kerberos libraries, but given we are making
> > a requirement I would go further and specify a minimum MIT Kerberos or
> > Heimdal Kerberos versions.
> > 
> > Testing for specific functionality to be present instead of version
> > numbers is also ok.
> 
> I strongly agree.  Kerberos libraries have come a long way in the last
> decade, and being able to rely on that would be very, very useful.

Functionality, not version numbers please ! Let's not re-introduce
old Makefile features :-).

Jeremy.