On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 12:39 -0700, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:50 AM, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > > I'd quite like to get NSS fixed, but I'm not entirely averse to just > > going through Fedora packages and switching them to build against > > GnuTLS or OpenSSL instead, if NSS is going to prove too resistant to > > getting fixed :) > > s/get NSS fixed/add support for a new feature to NSS/ . Let's call a > spade a spade :)
It's rarely productive to argue about the precise distinction between a 'bug' and a 'missing feature'. The difference is really about expectations. Certainly I'll grant you that when Mozilla bug 248722 was filed in 2004, asking for a system-wide configuration for PKCS#11 modules, it was entirely reasonable to call it a 'feature request'. One might *possibly* argue that in the decade that has passed since then, during which p11-kit has been developed and has become ubiquitous across Linux (and other *NIX) distributions, the expectations changed and it might be reasonable these days to considered it more of a bug than a missing features. Certainly, in the context of Fedora, whose packaging guidelines now say that applications SHOULD use the modules specified in the p11-kit configuration, there's a fairly strong case for calling it a 'bug'. But as I said, there's not a lot of point in arguing about terminology. If you want to call it a 'missing feature', that's fine by me. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ p11-glue mailing list p11-glue@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/p11-glue
