Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 15:16 -0600, Richard Megginson wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 17:02:06 Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:57:45PM -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
Why this is bad?
It still is not fully reproducible in a sense that other people can't
take our source, modify it slightly, and make a Sun-blessed JSS JAR.
I'm really against it. At the very least, it screws over CentOS. This a bad
path to be going down.
I'd much prefer gcj and the future Fedora-shipped implementation of the Sun
JVM to make it easy to use self-generated certificates. If someone wants to
install a proprietary JVM, let's make _that_ the hard case.
I agree. How much fun would it be if apache suddenly decided to not function
with self signed certs and any cert you used had to come from verasign ?
A radical way to do this would be for Fedora to acquire a signing cert
from Sun, and redistribute the key and cert with the JSS package.
Clarification: Fedora can't acquire a signing cert from Sun. Only Red
Hat, Inc can.
I doubt Red Hat is willing to get a cert/key, then freely distribute
them with the packages. I can hear lawyers screaming at the thought.
IMHO, either we ship them unsigned, or we don't ship them.
Agreed, except there's no reason not to ship them. So I say ship them unsigned
for use on gcj now, and then...
When Sun GPLs the Java bits, we can fix this properly.
Tom
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
