Re: KRB5_CONFIG for "make check"

[Phil Pennock <heimdal-discuss+phil.p@spodhuis.org>]

On 2006-11-13 at 09:03 +0100, Harald Barth wrote:
> Yes, sure, I don't understand what that has to do with EXAMPLE.COM which
> comes in the way of Heimdal to correctly determine the local realm from
> other mechanisms than a config file from anothet packet.

My understanding is that the original poster had a problem because a
plugin was expecting to be able to safely use EXAMPLE.COM and that this
went wrong because RedHat's krb5.conf also defines EXAMPLE.COM.

If the plugin uses its own stub realm, from under the naming authority
of the author of the plugin, then this problem goes away.

> > End of problem -- anyone from another organisation has no rights to use
> > names which have been delegated to "your" ownership in a federated
> > naming system.
> 
> Eh? That's not the problem.

Then I've misunderstood and I'm sorry for any confusion caused.  I'd
understood this to be a classic case of resource conflict caused by
assumptions of privateness, readily solved in a federated naming system.

If someone can hit me with a clue-by-four explaining the real problem,
it'd be appreciated.  Thanks.

-Phil