From owner-freebsd-python@freebsd.org Tue Aug 7 11:29:59 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683B91059C46 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059988AD84 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id BDD511059C3B; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839921059C3A for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257FF8AD81 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535601EA71 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w77BTv5a045083 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:57 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w77BTvlG045082 for python@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:29:57 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 230414] security/py-certifi: add option to use certificate bundle from ca_root_nss Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 11:29:57 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: feature, needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: python@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: flagtypes.name Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 11:29:59 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230414 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(sergey | |@akhmatov.ru) | --- Comment #4 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Sergey Akhmatov from comment #2) I wouldn't say anyone is strictly against anything, particularly since this= is a specific (third-party ecosystem) case without an obvious policy/guideline= .=20 Having said that, not being against something doesn't automatically or necessarily mean being pro/for position a change either. For what it's worth, it's good to have references to other OS's making simi= lar changes. I think this ultimately boils down to the distinction you make in your 'main point', which I understand and agree with. It's one thing to want to extend a provided trust store (1), its another entirely to switch out a specific set with another set ((2), what is propos= ed here). Also, if I understand correctly, switching certifi's store out for that provided by security/ca_root_nss, would be the first step to getting the desired feature of local extensions to that store, via bug 160387. I don't think doing (2), in order to achieve (1) is the right approach. While I understand the value of the feature being described, I also believe that with the above context, the most important thing here is still user-expectation, and principle of least astonishment. Users/developers installing certifi would expect to get the certs/store/trust model the documentation of certifi stipulates, unless options provided (officially) by that package allowed otherwise. I would still recommend making the case for the added value of the "extend-certifi-store" feature to upstream. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.=