[krbdev.mit.edu #1349] Initial comments on umich RPC

[kwc@citi.umich.edu via RT]

> The ifdef style is kind of unfortunate.  Rather than removing old
> code, the patches add ifdefs which should either be always true or
> always false as I understand things.  If there are cases where you
> might define the ifdefs other than one way, I'd like to understand how
> that would work.  If my understanding is correct, I can run unifdef as
> I apply the patches.


My initial thought was that you might want to support a configure option
of which rpc library to use.  Thinking about it now, it sounds like a
support nightmare.  So yes, unifdef is probably the way to go.
 

> The changes related to using kadmin/fqdn instead of kadmin/admin are a
> bit more far-reaching than I had hoped.  I am also concerned they may
> create problems for multi-homed admin servers and may create a support
> load we don't want to deal with.  I will revisit that issue on krbdev.

I believe the bulk of the changes were in the testcases.  Many of those
changes were due to the change to use the non-rpc based kpasswd in the
tests, not because of the kadmin principal change.