From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 03:54:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6692337B404 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7086943F75 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:54:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D792E; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:54:28 -0600 (CST) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7CDF778C43; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:54:28 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:54:28 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Stijn Hoop Message-ID: <20030327115428.GF98283@madman.celabo.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Stijn Hoop , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20030327111440.GJ93053@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030327111440.GJ93053@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i-ja.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make release without a lot of the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:54:31 -0000 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:14:40PM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > First, should even kerberos be built with the NO* options above? No, it should not. Defining NOCRYPT or NO_OPENSSL will prevent the kerberosIV directory from being entered during the build. [...] > Second, I have tried adding MAKE_KERBEROS4=no to make.conf but that doesn't > appear to make a difference. What's the correct option in /etc/make.conf to > skip building kerberos 4 and 5? Don't do that. The correct option is not to define MAKE_KERBEROS[45] at all. The value does not matter ... if it is defined, it will be read as `make it please'. I would guess that your flags aren't getting propogated as you think. *shrug* Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine http://www.celabo.org/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se