Bob Edgar wrote:
---
Trying to build on various Solaris versions sparc/(5.8 - 5.10)
I've run into a problem with gssapi.h seen by various people in
the past. The workaround is to comment out
 #define HAVE_GSSAPI_H 1
in config.h. Since this would seem to be a general problem I'm
wondering if it should simply defined off for Solaris?

I've copied in the original discussion from heimdal-discuss to
make it simpler to find if you decide not to change it.

bob


>>It's a Samba bug.  I didn't look very close at your logs but
>>I ran into this a few days ago and will get it fixed.
>>The problem is that we are including Sun's <gssapi/gssapi.h>
>>and <gssapi.h> from heimdal.
>>
>>The workaround is to comment out the '#define HAVE_HSSAPI_GSSAPI_H 1'

>from samba-VERSION/source/include/config.h after you run ./configure

>>but before you run make.
>>
>>Hope this helps.  I'll try to get a proper fix in before
>>3.0.8.


Thanks!!

In my case it was HAVE_GSSAPI_H that needed to be comment out. 

/* Define to 1 if you have the <gssapi/gssapi.h> header file. */
#define HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_H 1 

/* Define to 1 if you have the <gssapi.h> header file. */
/* #define HAVE_GSSAPI_H 1 */
---

  I see this a lot when doing porting work: someone has a
version of a .h file that is used to override or replace a
similarly named file in /usr/include.
  It mysteriously doesn't work, until the author looks
at the source and notices he's said #include <foo.h>
instead of #include "foo.h".

In samba, config sets the define thusly:
/* Define to 1 if you have the <gssapi/gssapi.h> header file. */
#define HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_H 1

and it is put into the includes file thusly:
  File         Line
4 includes.h   479 #include <gssapi.h>
5 includes.h   481 #include <gssapi/gssapi.h>

  What you arguably need is a test to set HEIMDAL_HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_H
that overrides the system HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_H, and code to
- put #include "gssapi.h" into includes.h and
- put -I/path/to/heimdal into the compile options
when HEIMDAL_HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_H is true.

  It's a small bug, but one that's really hard to notice, because
it's <> instead of "".  Sort of a fruit-fly (;-)) 

--dave