On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 04:51:42PM -0400, Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: > On 05/26/10 16:43, Danek Duvall wrote: > > Personally, I'd drop the underscore in favor of a dash, but otherwise it +1
> > 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 > > ... > > 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. Delivering PKCS#11 providers in separate pkgs would create the need to dynamically assemble the libpkcs11 config file, which would mean creating an SMF service or modifying some other existing suitable service... > 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. But you'll need to modify the libpkcs11 config to make use of it, no? Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
