On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:00:06PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (07/06/16 15:13), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:56PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 04:32:20PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > >> > > > oops, yes I guess this would be a good idea. I'll send a new patch. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > new version attached. > >> > > > >> > > bye, > >> > > Sumit > >> > > >> > One last question, do we want to add the ocsp_default_responder and > >> > ocsp_default_responder_signing_cert options to configAPI? > >> > >> No, because I think the configAPI is currently not capable of this > >> because both are only allowed options to certificate_verification as > >> e.g. no_ocsp or no_verification. > > > >OK, makes sense. > > > >Thank you, ACK. > master: > * 53ef8f81b60929a6c866efdd133627e7d7d61705 > * aa35995ef056aa8ae052a47c62c6750b7adf065e > * 875c90d531e6869a92da4b515db729ffce7c4244 > > LS
I would like to backport these patches to sssd-1-13, because without them, the patches for upstream #2977 do not apply cleanly and I think it's better to apply more upstream patches than to backport and fork. _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
