On 27/05/2010 15:31, Danek Duvall wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
/system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_kernel
/system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_softtoken
/system/library/security/pkcs11/pkcs11_tpm
Since we don't already have /pkcs11/ I'd prefer the more generic /crypto/
Not already having a portion of the hierarchy isn't a good reason for not
creating it.
Agreed, that wasn't the rationale for preferring crypto though.
We're by no means done fixing the package naming scheme in
stone. So if something makes sense, we should do it. That said, /crypto/
seems like a perfectly reasonable place.
/crypto/ makes much more sense since /pkcs11/ is to specific to one API.
Personally I'd rather /security/ wasn't in the name, but then I hate it
in the filesystem and the SMF FMRI's as well.
Should libgcrypt and libmcrypt move to /s/l/s/crypto, too?
Yes, and so should OpenSSL, and we should probably move all the
kernel/crypto providers into their own package in that hierarchy as well
(there is already an open CR for that from years ago).
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
