<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/1/10 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:EmilienKia@eaton.com">EmilienKia@eaton.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Arjen, Hi all,<br>
<br>
The main reason is to homogenize directive names between apps (mainly upsmon which uses CERTPATH and upsd which uses CERTNAME) to set the same property.<br>
Note that the CERTFILE directive is working but is just flagged as deprecated.<br>
<br>
As ssl support compilation is exclusive (only openssl or nss at the same time), I do not see any reason to keep two directives in parallel (one per compile profile) doing the same thing (pointing to the certificate database, in the form of a single file or a directory).<br>
<br>
About configuration directive, only CERTFILE/CERTPATH change of content (a directory instead of a file) but the semantic is kept unchanged. All other SSL related directives are just for NSS mode. So generate different .conf.sample files is IMHO disproportionate related to the too few alterations. Perhaps add few lines of comment in these .conf.sample files?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I would also add that documentation will also be in that way:<br>UPGRADING will inform existing users to move to CERTPATH, and user documentation will note CERTFILE as deprecated in favor of CERTPATH.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Any other comment or point of view?<br></blockquote><div><br>
that being said, I'll have to look at the docs and conf sample to see if having conditioned content is worth or not (ie confusing and overloading or not)<br><br>cheers,<br>Arnaud <br>(ps: Emilien, please don't top post ;-)<br>
<br>
</div></div>