On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:33:34PM +0200, Joachim Selke wrote:
Yes, it is intentional, but I forgot to mention the change.
In addition, the new name makes clear that there have been many
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".
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
There is a not-completely-trivial migration cost for every change. If
one file moves (eg for dovecot, it would only be the public part of
cert moving, private is in right place already), the breakage risk is
lower. I would love to get this done for once and ever, i already have
quite some /usr/share -> /etc/pki migration cruft accumulated.
Moving certificates in scriptlets is non-nice, breaking your tls setup
is not much better. I recognize that things would be better if
locations are standardized... but it's getting more boring every time
the preferred location changes. So in the end, i am left unconvinced,
it's the poor maintainers (including me) who need to handle all the
Also, if we are trying to get some consensus, consulting ssl
maintainer would be a good thing to do (i believe he's currently
unreachable though, holidays or somesuch, but not sure).
The bottom line is, that yes, if it is widely believed that /etc/certs
is a better place than /etc/pki (which i'm not convinced about
either), sure, why not. Just don't change mind right after a first FC
release with the new certificate-location-of-the-year gets out.
Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
-- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation