[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arla and Heimdal?
Brian May <email@example.com> writes:
> > Well, the client is quite a lot more stable and more functional that
> > the server, currently.
> How much/what work is still required on the server?
That's kind of hard to give a good answer to. The server currently
works enough that you're able to bootstrap arla itself.
> I am not particularly interested in backword compatability myself. I
> am more interested in Arla as a free, secure, filesystem with Keberos
> support. I personally wouldn't mind if compatability was broken with
> Transarc servers, especially if it meant better functionality. However,
> I don't have any Transarc servers anyway ;-), so my be biased.
Yes, we have quite a lot of data in /afs (and some other people as
well, apparently) so being compatible is good.
> Are there any standards (proposed or otherwise) that define AFS? eg
> any RFCs?
mostly it. That's kind of the downside of trying to be compatible
with something else, but we seem to be quite good at following the
> Does heimdal come with krb4 compatability? This is one aspect I wasn't
> too sure of, I think configure might have turned in off by default (I
> will have to check this).
Yes it does, you can configure it with --with-krb4 or it'll
automatically detect if you have the required krb4 libraries. We use
our own krb4 distribution (http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/).