From nobody Thu Jan 19 12:08:01 2023 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NyLxT3TjFz2sl5y for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:08:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from www121.sakura.ne.jp (www121.sakura.ne.jp [153.125.133.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NyLxS18Q4z4Pkb for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:08:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp has no SPF policy when checking 153.125.133.21) smtp.mailfrom=junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp; dmarc=none Received: from kalamity.joker.local (123-1-88-210.area1b.commufa.jp [123.1.88.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by www121.sakura.ne.jp (8.16.1/8.16.1/[SAKURA-WEB]/20201212) with ESMTPA id 30JC81NP007564 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:08:01 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:08:01 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can security/ca_root_nss be retired? Message-Id: <20230119210801.97b4eef4e21b96d40721b31a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <551458a3-665f-9f55-8ef9-1dd23e1e3aee@bluerosetech.com> References: <551458a3-665f-9f55-8ef9-1dd23e1e3aee@bluerosetech.com> Organization: Junchoon corps X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; amd64-portbld-freebsd13.0) List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.57 / 15.00]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.97)[-0.969]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sakura.ne.jp]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7684, ipnet:153.125.128.0/18, country:JP] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NyLxS18Q4z4Pkb X-Spamd-Bar: / X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 03:13:48 -0800 Mel Pilgrim wrote: > Given /usr/share/certs exists for all supported releases, is there any > reason to keep the ca_root_nss port? If everyone in the world uses LATEST main only, yes. But the assumption is clearly nonsense. Basically, commits to main are settled a while before MFC to stable branches, and MFS to releng branches needs additional settling days. If any certs happened to be non-reliable, this delay can cause, at worst, catastorphic scenario. If updates to certs are always promised to be "MFC after: now" and committed to ALL SUPPORTED BRANCHES AT ONCE, I have no objection. If not, keeping ca_root_nss port and updated ASAP with upstream should be mandatory. -- Tomoaki AOKI