Re: conf vs. lib

On 27/07/2016 12:38, Wang Weijun wrote: : Yes. Or just CACERTS? This will be ambiguous. It would be but do do you really want to use a token here? : How much is creating a new name or a new option worth? Do we plan to move cacerts again? Unless we backport it (I believe back porting a

Re: conf vs. lib

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 27/07/2016 10:45, Wang Weijun wrote: >> : >> I suggest we create a new special -keystore value "<>" which acts >> like an alias of the cacerts file. Creating a new option means we have to >> document its

Re: conf vs. lib

On 27/07/2016 10:45, Wang Weijun wrote: : I suggest we create a new special -keystore value "<>" which acts like an alias of the cacerts file. Creating a new option means we have to document its relation with the existing -keystore option. The new name can also work with the -importkeystore

Re: conf vs. lib

> 在 2016年7月27日，17:15，Alan Bateman 写道： > > So have you decided one way or the other to have keytool support updating > caceerts without needing to specify the file path? That would be consistent > with leaving it in lib. If there are existing scripts that are