On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Tino Keitel wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 22:18:15 +0100, Marcus Better wrote: > > > * Package name : xca > > > Description : x509 Certification Authority management tool based on > > > QT4 > > > > Is there anything significant that distinguishes this from TinyCA? > > XCA has more flexible template support, whereas TinyCA2 seems to be > limited to client, server and CA templates. Furthermore, XCA uses QT > instead of GTK.
If XCA has _any_ documentation at all, it is already better than TinyCA2 in something. Mind you, I am assuming it does a decent job of following the x509 style guide and gets certificate requests and CAs right. If it doesn't, it is actively harmful and should not be accepted at all. Upstream looks just as dead as tinyca2, and that is a MAJOR point against it. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
