On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:39:31PM -0400, Jason Edgecombe wrote: > Jeffrey Altman wrote: > >Axel Thimm wrote: > > > >>On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:34:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> > >>>Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> > >>> > >>>>should /usr/bin/pagsh and /usr/share/man/man1/pagsh.1.gz from > >>>>openafs-client be renamed so they don't clash with krbafs-utils on > >>>>Fedora/RHEL? > >>>> > >>>You should stop using krbafs-utils and switch to Kerberos v5. > >>> > >>That is out of my hands, this is a package that is shipped on Fedora > >>and RHEL proper and any user can install it. Whether it is sane or not > >>is another question, but asking Red Hat to remove this to fix the > >>above will not work, espcially not from released distributions. > >> > >>(FWIW it's not on RHEL5 anymore, but still on F7, F8 and of course the > >>elder distros) > >> > > > >I agree. Its not our responsibility to rename our commands after 20 > >years because a vendor decided to package up conflicting functionality > >and make it available to their end users. > > > >Doing so would only further confuse our user base. > > > > > > > what about putting a "conflicts" or "obsoletes" rpm field in there?
If that solves the issues I'm all for it. But I can't estimate the difference in functionality, and whether there would be any impact to users if krbafs-utils would be automatically replaced by openafs-client simply by enabling ATrpms. > Is there anything that krbafs-utils provides that openafs+krb5 doesn't krbafs-utils contains pagsh, afslog, kstring2key and the respective man pages. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpzv7Hh33Dik.pgp
Description: PGP signature
