[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#588219: ca-certificate's maintenance



On 09/16/2011 01:21 AM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> I don't think that some bits of vcs history should become a blocker. Let's 
> better work with what we already have at hand.

This sounds acceptable, but I thought of using snapshot.d.o to see if I
could fill in some history, and I have some time Saturday to work on this.

>>> I think we should setup a git repo in collab-maint or something.
>>
>> I also just asked to be added to collab-maint for precisely the same
>> reason - I think it would be a good place for maintenance of the package.
> 
> I see that you've been added already, great.

I init'ed collab-maint/ca-certificates, but I would like to see if I can
at least fill in the release history, as mentioned above.

> A couple of questions:
> Have you already subscribed to the PTS?

I am, now - thank you for the reminder.

> Do you have some experience in X.509 certificates, SSL/TLS, or the like?

As a customer support and systems engineer at Rackspace (I no longer
work there), I dealt with various Certificate Authorities regularly, on
behalf of customers, set up various software to use SSL/TLS,
troubleshoot problems, etc.  While I would not consider myself a
cryptography expert, I am familiar with the workings and the field
interests me.

> Unless somebody has a different opinion, I think we should first:
> a) Clean-up the packaging, It is a bit out of date and it leads to a few 
> warnings during the package build.
> b) Triage the bug reports, marking as 'confirmed' those that we consider valid 
> and that should be fixed relatively soon. All certificate inclusion requests 
> should be left on hold.

This is what I had started working on - I started picking off some
low-hanging fruit: packaging clean up start, po updates, etc.  I'd like
to find and fill in the few missing releases in git first, that would
make me happy, then merge some of the changes I made.

-- 
Kind regards,
Michael




Reply to: