Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https is getting everywhere. If you don't have ca's you cannot process them properly. I think https working is going to be important even for almost all embedded cases. Most iot deployments include something like calling the mothership, which ought to be https

Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

Hey Julien, On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:00:56PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:47:25PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:10:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >> > And which of standard or important made most sense (AIUI, standard >> > means "inst

Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

Hi Antonio, On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:47:25PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:10:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > And which of standard or important made most sense (AIUI, standard > > means "installed by default in d-i" and important means "installed by > > defau

Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:10:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > And which of standard or important made most sense (AIUI, standard > means "installed by default in d-i" and important means "installed by > default in debootstrap"). wget is already Priority: standard and recommends ca-certificates

Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

Marco d'Itri writes: > On Jan 21, Julien Cristau wrote: >> So I'd like to raise the priority of ca-certificates from optional to >> at least standard, as a signal that it should be installed on > Good idea: I think that "standard" is appropriate. I agree. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

On Jan 21, Julien Cristau wrote: > So I'd like to raise the priority of ca-certificates from optional to > at least standard, as a signal that it should be installed on Good idea: I think that "standard" is appropriate. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature

RFC: raising ca-certificates package Priority to standard or important

[bcc: {openssl,ca-certificates}@packages.d.o] Hi, the ca-certificates package is currently "Priority: optional", like most of the archive. It's Recommended by a bunch of packages, Depended on by an equivalent number, but I'm not sure if this is optimal. I suspect most packages can be configured