Re: [orbit-dev] Pushing bcprov and bcpkix 1.51 into Orbit ... and RC1 de

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That would be my preference. As that makes
it easier to find and is consistent with our "bundle naming policies".

That, and the 'symbolic id" is
the only thing that would have to change. Well, and I guess the feature
file, and the maps entries. 

But I am not "dictating" it.
If you or others think its fine the the way it is ... or, if it suffices
to just change the Symbolic Id, then I won't object,
but if you do leave as is, hope there's
good reason for it, and not just "it will be effort to change".
:) 

= = = = =

Just so everyone knows, I have not promoted
Orbit RC1 yet for two reasons: 
1) I want to consider fixing some of
the "names" in bundles (and especially their source counter parts,
bug 450222;
and 
2) I think we will have to "touch" some bundles
to update to current signing certificate, and am working on some tools
to help do it "for a reason" and not just blindly "touch"
everything. 

And, FYI, normally we'd not worry about "naming changes"
this late in the cycle, but there are so many that are inaccurate or wrong,
I think as a whole it rises to the level of "fix during RC1".
 

All in all, it may be very late tonight, or early tomorrow
before I am ready to promote. 

Sorry for the delay. 





From:      
 Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Orbit Developer discussion
<orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Cc:      
 David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Date:      
 05/12/2015 01:35 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [orbit-dev]
Pushing bcprov and bcpkix 1.51 into Orbit

---

> I've opened
> Bug 467064 - Request for JCE signing code certificate for Orbit Bundle
> for "post mars" work.
> We'll see if anything comes of that route, and if not, figure out
what to do
> instead of.

Given that this is planned for post-mars, I would guess it's ok to have
bcprov/bcpkix
without the JCE signature, esepcially since it's not a requirement for
the
project (com.spotify.docker.client) that will be using it in Mars.

David, are there any changes I should make for the Bundle-SymbolicName
(as you suggested) ? Would I need to recreate the bundle under a module
that
matches the new BSN ?

Cheers,
-- 
Roland Grunberg