-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Peter Rockai wrote:
> Tomorrow I am going to rewrite the draft at
> 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
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
What do others think about this?
B. Sc. Joachim Selke
Universität Hannover, Institut für Theoretische Informatik
Appelstraße 4, 30167 Hannover, Germany
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----