4 ms·

I am curious why this was submitted now, especially in light of the recent removal of cacert from Debian's ca-certificates package.[^1][^2] It seems that the di

by dfc 13y ago

I am curious why this was submitted now, especially in light of the recent removal of cacert from Debian's ca-certificates package.[^1][^2] It seems that the discussion of cacert's removal highlighted serious concerns about cacert's process. A request to include cacert in mozilla's certs sat in bugzilla for four years before it was--thankfully--closed.[^3] [^1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718434 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718434 [^2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/590879/ https://lwn.net/Articles/590879/ [^3]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215243 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215243

rurban 13y ago
No serious concerns. Just the typical overly debian knee-jerk reaction to bring someone down by bullying "because we can" and not for technical merits. There was no argumentation why cacert should be removed. Maybe Assange was right? (I still doubt it, debian politicians are just as stupid and like to abuse their powers as any other politicians are)
- dfc 13y ago
  Argument: (In order of how persuasive I found the argument) 1. "There was no argumentation why cacert should have been included initially." 2. No audit of CACert's process and infrastructure. 3. Mozilla and FreeBSD have had previous discussions and decided CACert was unacceptable. (reliance-on/agreement-with) 4. Questionable license.