[20300] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Not building kcpytkt/kdeltkt
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Hornstein)
Mon Aug 2 19:14:25 2021
Message-ID: <202108022314.172NE2ko005025@hedwig.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
In-Reply-To: <94490a064440a253f4bc4cda8f57afe217343027.camel@samba.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 19:14:01 -0400
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
>One small thing to consider is that each new binary will need to be
>packaged (or not packaged, most packaging systems watch out for
>unexpected new files), and if packages Debian will require a manpage.
>
>I guess I'm just saying that while not high-cost, it also isn't free.
I mean, I completely acknowledge that! I am just thinking out loud. Like
I said, I can only come up with weak reasons to add it. I am just trying
to understand why they are kind of around, but not really.
(FWIW, those utilities _had_ man pages, from my looking at the history
of things. But when things were converted from nroff format to using
rst as the source format, that work was never done for those utilities).
Also, I am building those programs now and I see they did not compile with
a prototype mismatch for an internal function. So, yes, they need a bit
of love.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
