-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter Rockai wrote: >> Tomorrow I am going to rewrite the draft at >> <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Certificates> and include >> your comment and others. > > Hmm, i may have missed the part where move from /etc/pki to /etc/certs > was discussed, is that change intentional in the draft? Yes, it is intentional, but I forgot to mention the change. I think a "public key infrastructure" is some kind service or organization that includes a certificate authority, a registration authority, a directory service, a certificate revocation list, a certificate policy and many other things. Hence, the name /etc/certs should be better in my opinion. In addition, the new name makes clear that there have been many changes in Fedora's certificate handling. Also I think the name "certs" is more precise and understandable; there are more people who know what "certs" are that those who know the term "pki". > I just don't > see the benefit of changing things around, specially since many of the > existing packages mostly agree on /etc/pki/tls/appname or somesuch, > slight shuffle within /etc/pki should be much less pain than moving to > /etc/certs. Since nearly all certificate related packages have to be changed, I think it makes no difference whether the name is changed to /etc/pki or /etc/certs. Also with a new name it is easier to see what packages have been changed already to follow the guidelines, and what still need to be changed. What do others think about this? Joachim - -- B. Sc. Joachim Selke Universität Hannover, Institut für Theoretische Informatik Appelstraße 4, 30167 Hannover, Germany <http://www.thi.uni-hannover.de/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEyLKdq7fYj4TsIUwRAopsAJ0a1Givfw34M74Hq8MJBEDakvy8LACgtgXA inqmoJ2ydRVyF/Pb9DOEZ8c= =yc7q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
