On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 21:10:30 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: [...]
> If XCA has _any_ documentation at all, it is already better than TinyCA2 in > something. It has a lot of HTML documentation. However, the GUI is easy to use, I never needed to look into the documentation. > 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. I don't know about "x509 style guide", I'll look into it. > Upstream looks just as dead as tinyca2, and that is a MAJOR point against > it. Yes, the last upstream version is from 2007. But the author is working on 0.7, the last commit in the git repisitory[1] is from March 3rd. I also know the author in person. My packaging is already finished and lintian-clean, and I have a sponsor, too. I'm waiting for the author to include 2 small patches and release a 0.7 version Regards, Tino [1] http://git.hohnstaedt.de/xca.git -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org