Bug 1255448 - The 32bit versions of krb5-server and krb5-server-ldap should not be distributed
Summary: The 32bit versions of krb5-server and krb5-server-ldap should not be distributed
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: krb5
Version: 22
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robbie Harwood
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/tick...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1255450
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-08-20 15:25 UTC by Patrik Kis
Modified: 2016-03-10 19:11 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-03-10 19:11:42 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Patrik Kis 2015-08-20 15:25:16 UTC
Description of problem:

The 32bit version of krb5-server and krb5-server-ldap (i.e. krb5-server.i686, krb5-server.s390, krb5-server.ppc) are distributed in Fedora. But krb5-server contains no libs and krb5-server-ldap has only internal API. Therefore it should not be distributed at all. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
krb5-1.13.1-3.fc22

How reproducible:
always

Additional info:
If these packages will be blacklisted, it would be nice to add the as obsolete in the krb5 spec file too.

Comment 2 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2015-09-01 21:36:06 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 3 Robbie Harwood 2016-01-28 20:33:38 UTC
Sorry, why is this needed?  These packages are perfectly functional in Fedora, and have the same contents across all architectures as far as I know.  Is there some bit of Fedora policy I'm missing?

Comment 4 Nalin Dahyabhai 2016-01-28 20:52:45 UTC
I expect this is about keeping the 32-bit versions of those packages out of the 64-bit trees.  Unlike other plugins in krb5-libs and krb5-pkinit, the plugins in krb5-server and krb5-server-ldap are only used by the KDC, so there's no point in including versions of them that don't match architecture of the KDC binary.

Comment 5 Patrik Kis 2016-01-29 08:25:20 UTC
Yes they are functional, but these 2 sub-packages are needless, as Nalin pointed out (thanks), so I believe the full functionality will be kept without them.

Comment 6 Robbie Harwood 2016-01-29 17:17:19 UTC
Thanks.  I've opened a rel-eng ticket.

Comment 7 Robbie Harwood 2016-03-10 19:11:42 UTC
This should be fixed for fc24.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.