On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 22:18:15 +0100, Marcus Better wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tino Keitel wrote:
>
> > * Package name : xca
> > Description : x509 Certification Authority management tool based on
> > QT4
>
> Is there anything significant that distinguishes this from TinyCA?

XCA has more flexible template support, whereas TinyCA2 seems to be
limited to client, server and CA templates. Furthermore, XCA uses QT
instead of GTK.

Regards,
Tino


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Tino Keitel wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 22:18:15 +0100, Marcus Better wrote:
> > > * Package name : xca
> > > Description : x509 Certification Authority management tool based on
> > > QT4
> >
> > Is there anything significant that distinguishes this from TinyCA?
>
> XCA has more flexible template support, whereas TinyCA2 seems to be
> limited to client, server and CA templates. Furthermore, XCA uses QT
> instead of GTK.

If XCA has _any_ documentation at all, it is already better than TinyCA2 in
something.

Mind you, I am assuming it does a decent job of following the x509 style
guide and gets certificate requests and CAs right. If it doesn't, it is
actively harmful and should not be accepted at all.

Upstream looks just as dead as tinyca2, and that is a MAJOR point against
it.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 21:10:30 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

[...]

> If XCA has _any_ documentation at all, it is already better than TinyCA2 in
> something.

It has a lot of HTML documentation. However, the GUI is easy to use, I
never needed to look into the documentation.

> Mind you, I am assuming it does a decent job of following the x509 style
> guide and gets certificate requests and CAs right. If it doesn't, it is
> actively harmful and should not be accepted at all.

I don't know about "x509 style guide", I'll look into it.

> Upstream looks just as dead as tinyca2, and that is a MAJOR point against
> it.

Yes, the last upstream version is from 2007. But the author is working
on 0.7, the last commit in the git repisitory[1] is from March 3rd. I
also know the author in person.

My packaging is already finished and lintian-clean, and I have a
sponsor, too. I'm waiting for the author to include 2 small patches
and release a 0.7 version

Regards,
Tino

[1] http://git.hohnstaedt.de/xca.git


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org