X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<439C3A2E.FF0A6ABA@dessent.net>
Date:	Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:39:42 -0800
From:	Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: kerberos
References:	<002001c5fe4f$fc2064a0$99055f12 AT somerville>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Dan Stratila wrote:

> I was wondering why (MIT) Kerberos is not an official cygwin package? There
> are many cons for it:

The only reason that it is not an official package is that no one has
volunteered to do it.  The packaging guide on the web site describes
everything necessary.  But nothing will happen until someone actually
follows through and offers to maintain them.  Wishful thinking will not
make it so.

> 3) It looks like there are at least 3 binary sets of various versions of
> krb5 available online ( http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/testing/release/krb5/,
> and http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/~cplager/kerberos.html, and
> http://www-clued0.fnal.gov/~axel/files/). By making this a package, at least
> 3 people will save time. :)

You should be asking those people why they chose to post packages on
their own sites rather than step up and offer to maintain them as
official packages.

By the way, topics about packaging belong on the cygwin-apps (at)
cygwin.com mailing list, not here.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -