[csw-pkgsubmissions] nss

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> 1. why are we using libexec, for certificate utilities? Is there a
> significant performance gain, and why do we CARE about performance,
> for certificate utilities? surely it wont matter unless you are
> processing thousands a minute, or something? what does that??

This comes in GAR for free, by default, when you build 64-bit
applications.  Is there a reason to disable it?

> 2. it delivers /opt/csw/lib/libssl3.so
>  The potential for conflicting (at some nebulous point in the future)
> against openssl.. which delivers
>   /opt/csw/lib/libssl.so ... worries me.
>
>  This is an open-ended concern. I dont have any particular solutions
> to suggest..I'm just bringing it out in the open, to see whether other
> people share my concern on this, and/or have specific reasons why it
> should NOT be a concern.

I spoke with the developer, and what NSS guys do, is they use the
appended number instead of SONAMEs.  Don't ask me, why.  If they need
to change the API, they'll create libssl4.so.

> 3. /opt/csw/lib/libnss3.so
>
>  Isnt this the same thing that firefox/mozilla/whatever uses? If so,
> should we not split out a separate
>  runtime package for the shared libs, so it can use them more cleanly?
> Or does it actually use the executables as well?

It doesn't use executables.  I'm splitting the package.

> 4. naming.
> Comparing with "other distributions", they seem to have named relevant
> things "libnss3".
> Well, actually, "libnss3", and "libnss3-tools".
>
> Should we follow suit?

We should.  Done.