Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ca-certificates PDEPEND

[Andrea Barisani]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> 9.1.2006, 17:28:04, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>
> >> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a USE= flag?
> >> >> If so should it be a 'no*certs' flag or a USE=cacerts ?
> >>
> >> > USE=cacerts sounds the proper course of action to me.
> >>
> >> NOT until use-based deps are in place, plzktnxbye!!! Don't break the damned
> >> realplayer thing again.
>
> > It's the realplayer thing that should be fixed. Can't believe that
> > ca-certificates got relatively quiet as a PDEPEND because of that ;).
>
> No, it's not, it's FETCHCOMMAND/wget thing. Would like to hear about
> alternatives besides those discussed ad nauseam in Bug 101457.
>

I know I read the bug. My remark wasn't a "strict" one.

> Realplayer does *not* depend on ca-certificates in ANY way, it's

That's kinda obvious.

> FETCHCOMMAND that's broken w/ unknown CA and self-signed certificates. Since
> not honoring self-signed certificates by default can be hardly considered as
> a bug, hence the depenency on ca-certificates in wget.
>

Yeah it could be treated as a bug, I'd rather fix that by patching wget
(--dont-be-a-pain-with-self-signed-certs yes) or anyway at *that* layer and not 
by adding ca-certificates as a DEPEND since it has other implications that we 
already discussed.

-- 
Andrea Barisani <lcars@g.o>                            .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer                          V
                                                             (   )
PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
    0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E        ^^_^^
      "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list