Hi,
Bullseye will be frozen soon. Let's manage to get this sorted out b4
😀️.
What is the status here.
How can I help to get this feature implemented.
BTW: I think #926388 is a duplicate
BR
DI(FH) Holger Fischer, MSc
On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 10:33 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sun 2019-01-13 19:07:42 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > The coding would be straightforward afaict.
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/gnutls-team/p11-kit/commits/tmp-704180-divertnss
>
> I like the looks of this, though perhaps w
On Sun 2019-01-13 20:40:08 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> The problem is that if nothing is pulling the new package in the default
> installation, nobody will ever use it.
hm, this is true, but it's also likely to be true for a non-default
debconf choice as well, right? most people keep thei
On Sun 2019-01-13 19:07:42 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> The coding would be straightforward afaict.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/gnutls-team/p11-kit/commits/tmp-704180-divertnss
I like the looks of this, though perhaps we want to name the new package
p11-kit-trust to be more in line with the na
Le 11/01/19 à 18:28, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
On Fri 2019-01-11 18:17:26 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
The problem is what/who will decide if this package is installed? If
that package is being pulled by on other package for some reason, that
means that the local administrator will not b
On 2019-01-11 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2019-01-10 21:48:22 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 15:53 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> what's the advantage of using alternatives instead of a package-
>>> specific displacement?
>> None really, as long as you put i
On Fri 2019-01-11 18:17:26 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> The problem is what/who will decide if this package is installed? If
> that package is being pulled by on other package for some reason, that
> means that the local administrator will not be able to revert the
> decision of the packag
Le 11/01/19 à 17:17, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
On Thu 2019-01-10 21:48:22 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 15:53 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
what's the advantage of using alternatives instead of a package-
specific displacement?
None really, as long as you put it i
On Thu 2019-01-10 21:48:22 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 15:53 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> what's the advantage of using alternatives instead of a package-
>> specific displacement?
>
> None really, as long as you put it in a separate p11-kit-trust package
> as Fed
On Fri 2019-01-11 08:09:02 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Looking back, I see this bug was opened with the comment "With the
> recent switch of wheezy-security's iceweasel to using the
> embedded copy of nss..."
>
> That was 2014 though. Is it no longer the case?
i can confirm that it is no longe
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > However, am I right in thinking that we have multiple packages all
> > shipping their *own* special version of the NSS libraries, instead of
> > using the system one? Each instance of libnssckbi.so (in firefox,
> > thunderbird, etc.)
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 15:53 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> what's the advantage of using alternatives instead of a package-
> specific displacement?
None really, as long as you put it in a separate p11-kit-trust package
as Fedora/RHEL do.
You don't want installation of the p11-kit package i
On Thu 2019-01-10 19:14:06 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> If I'm searching for a file called libnssckbi.so in the archive, the
> only other occurrence is in package libapache2-mod-nss.
afaict, that's just a symlink:
etc/apache2/nssdb/libnssckbi.so -> /usr/lib/$ARCH_TRIPLET/nss/libnssckbi
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 14:04 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2019-01-09 16:39:36 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > So what is the status of this?
> >
> > In RHEL 7 they made the switch to p11-kit and libnssckbi.so is an
> > alternative between the file shipped by nss and p11-kit-trus
Le 10/01/19 à 19:03, David Woodhouse a écrit :
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 14:04 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On Wed 2019-01-09 16:39:36 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
So what is the status of this?
In RHEL 7 they made the switch to p11-kit and libnssckbi.so is an
alternative between the file
On Wed 2019-01-09 16:39:36 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> So what is the status of this?
>
> In RHEL 7 they made the switch to p11-kit and libnssckbi.so is an
> alternative between the file shipped by nss and p11-kit-trust.so shipped
> by p11-kit (with p11-kit version being the default).
>
>
Hello,
So what is the status of this?
In RHEL 7 they made the switch to p11-kit and libnssckbi.so is an
alternative between the file shipped by nss and p11-kit-trust.so shipped
by p11-kit (with p11-kit version being the default).
Should we switch debian by default to p11-kit as well?
17 matches
Mail list logo
