Just FYI, it looks like it's on Github, by the original author: https://github.com/dblacka/jdnssec-tools/releases/tag/0.12 . So it looks like it'd be trivial to fix and keep, if we wanted to.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM Fieck, Brennan <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> wrote: > +1 on removing > > I'm not super familiar with Java/maven build systems, but I don't see a > problem with keeping it in the tests if that's possible - but code that > isn't used shouldn't be a dependency. > ________________________________________ > From: Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:24 PM > To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removal of JDNSSEC dependency from Traffic Router > > I'm good with removing it entirely from any even optional use in the > code as it could run in production. But testing frameworks against one > another is absolutely of value, and falls squarely into an adequate > licensing exception for LGPL use. I'm -0 on removing it from the > tests. If we can't find an easy place for automatic download, we > should remove it, but if it's reasonable to swap out the source, or > allow folks to build and provide their own, I think we'd gain by > including it in our testing scheme. > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > eliminate an unnecessary dependency? +1 (+1000 if I could...) . > > > > > > If it's kept around only for testing purposes, the tester should deal > > > with that separately: perhaps a documentation update is warranted in > that > > > case. > > > > > > -dan > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:40 AM Rivas, Jesse <jesse_ri...@comcast.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Traffic Controllers, > > > > > > > > Currently, the .pkg script is failing to build the Traffic Router rpm > > > > because the build_rpm.sh script for TR attempts to download > > > > jdnssec-tools.jar from verisign ( > > > > http://www.verisignlabs.com/dnssec-tools/packages/old-releases), > which is > > > > no longer available. Traffic Router used to leverage code from the > > > > jdnssec-tools.jar for zone signing, but it has since been replaced > with our > > > > own implementation. All of the classes and subsequent tests that use > the > > > > jdnssec package were previously moved from “core” to a separate > module in > > > > Traffic Router (called “jdnssec”) that is not included in the maven > build > > > > by default, and was kept for legacy and testing purposes. I would > like to > > > > propose removing the JDNSSEC dependency from Traffic Router > altogether; > > > > this would include removing the jdnssec module in Traffic Router and > > > > subsequent pom files, and removing the “installDnsSec” function from > the > > > > build_rpm.sh script in Traffic Router that attempts to download > > > > jdnssec-tools.jar and fails if it is unsuccessful. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there is any opposition to removing the > external > > > > JDNSSEC dependency from Traffic Router, as it is no longer used for > zone > > > > signing and is no longer available for download from verisign. > > > > > > > > -Jesse > > > > >
