On 05/26/10 16:43, Danek Duvall wrote: > Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: > >> I'm thinking it should be something like: >> /system/library/security/pkcs11_kms >> and the manifest would be system-library-security-pkcs11_kms >> >> Would this be acceptable? > > Personally, I'd drop the underscore in favor of a dash, but otherwise it > seems fine. I suppose you could make the argument in favor of the > underscore, since that's the name of the man page. The question to ask > would be, would > > /system/library/security/pkcs11_kernel > /system/library/security/pkcs11_softtoken > /system/library/security/pkcs11_tpm > > also be reasonable packages, and what would go into them? Are there other > pkcs11 things that would go into their own packages that aren't plugins to > the pkcs11 library, thus suggesting a heirarchy like > > /system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_kernel > /system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_softtoken > /system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_tpm > > Might we have similar hierarchy for pkcs7, et al?
Well, one *could* argue to put all of the above into individual packages, but since they are all critical packages (well, at least pkcs11_softtoken and pkcs11_kernal are, tpm maybe not) they probably belong in /system/library where they are now. pkcs11_tpm *could* be split out but should probably still be installed by default. However, that is beyond the scope of my project at this point. pkcs11_kms is not something we want to have installed by default since it is only really useful in an environment where there is a KMS available, so I think it's best left isolated in it's own package that can be installed as necessary without bringing in lots of other stuff. -Wyllys _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
