[MacPorts] #36781: cyrus-sasl2: use Heimdal instead of MIT Kerberos on Lion and later

[MacPorts]

#36781: cyrus-sasl2: use Heimdal instead of MIT Kerberos on Lion and later
--------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  aronnax@…    |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports        |    Version:  2.1.2
Resolution:               |   Keywords:  haspatch
      Port:  cyrus-sasl2  |
--------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by aronnax@…):

 Replying to [comment:3 ryandesign@…]:
 > There are two courses of action that would work:
 >
 >  1. Do as you suggested initially, and require kerberos5 on Snow Leopard
 and earlier and heimdal on Lion and later. Modify all ports that use
 kerberos5 or heimdal to abide by this edict. Do not offer any variants to
 select the kerberos implementation. If it is desirable to make the
 kerberos5 and heimdal ports conflicting, then that would be fine. The
 kerberos5 and heimdal ports could even be modified so that they refuse to
 install on OS X versions not designed for their use. But since many users
 of Lion and Mountain Lion do have kerberos5 installed today, and probably
 some users of Snow Leopard and earlier have heimdal installed, there must
 be a seamless upgrade path that will result in the old port being
 deactivated and the new port activated (the "deactivate hack" that we've
 used in some other ports).

 I was reading about how to do that by looking at r95305 as an example. In
 this case, would the deactivate hack have to be applied to kerberos5 and
 heimdal, or to the ports that depend on them? On what test would the
 registry_deactivate_composite be conditioned?

 >  2. Allow the user to select which kerberos implementation they want.
 Offer variants wherever possible. The ports may not be made to conflict in
 this case.

 In option 2, is there a way to have ${prefix}/bin/kinit map to heimdal's
 kinit or kerberos5's kinit at the user's discretion? Is this within the
 scope of 'port select'?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/36781#comment:4>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS