[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: kpop or kpush for Debian 3.0 (Woody)

> > Thanks for your reply. When I look at Debian's web page it seams that 
> > you're right. Strange thou that the kpush client is part of the server 
> > package and not the client. It seams to be the same for Heimdal;

The fact that push does get installed (by heimdal) in libexec does not
automatically make it candidate for the "server package". It's rather
the case that the binaries in libexec are mostly called by other
programs. Binaries in sbin are called by sysadmins and in bin goes the
stuff for everyone. That's the thought behind heimdal's world order as
I understand it. Less clutter in your PATH.

> I'm not really sure what kpush does. 

     push - fetch mail via POP

     push [-4 | --krb4] [-5 | --krb5] [-v | --verbose] [-f | --fork]
          [-l | --leave] [--from] [-c | --count] [--headers=headers] [-p
          port-spec | --port=port-spec] po-box filename

If we are talking about the same binary: It kpops.

> But I can tell you what the original
> rationale for deciding things in -clients or -servers (originally named
> -services to distinguish it from the kerberos server itself) was and then the
> current maintainer can figure out whether kpush should be moved based on that.
> The original rationale was that -servers had everything that would change the
> security policy on a box, so that it would be completely safe to install
> -clients as a convenience to users. Even on a site where kerberos wasn't the
> standard security method and where the admin knows nothing about configuring
> the kerberized tools.

According to that, push should go into client, don't you think?

According to the webb, the lastest unstable has push in
heimdal-clients and its man page in heimdal-servers.