(Final?) krb5.Conf Lexer/Parser Proposal
jaltman at MIT.EDU
Thu Jan 5 09:26:49 EST 2006
Joseph Calzaretta wrote:
> Thanks for your input. I think we do understand why the final
> signifier was implemented, but the Kerberos team thought it wasn't
> worth supporting. We might want to review this decision, especially
> if we discover that a lot of existing profile config files are using
> it. Thanks again!
> Joe Calzaretta
> Software Development & Integration Team
> MIT Information Services & Technology
If we want to continue to support chaining of configuration files
then I think it must be supported.
The configuration editor in KFW does not generate the "final signifier"
on sections because there is rarely ever more a single krb5.conf file
and it would be unclear whether or not the user preferences should be
treated as an addition to the administrative defaults or an addition
to them. Right now there simply isn't a good UI for managing this
More information about the krbdev