On 27.2.2014 21:35, Francis Dupont via RT wrote:
> On Wed Feb 26 15:11:58 2014, pspacek@redhat.com wrote:
>> I'm trying to test BIND 9.10.0b1 with SoftHSM 1.3.3-4.fc20.x86_64
>> and it doesn't work.
>
> => it can't work: SoftHSM v1 (vs v2) doesn't implement
> some required PKCS#11 mechanisms.
> BTW the pkcs11-tokens application was created to check
> this point.
Great! I think this deserves *big fat* note in release notes.

>> The same version of SoftHSM works with pkcs11-list from BIND 9.9.4-P2:
>
> => BIND 9.9.4 has no native PKCS#11 support so
> can't be wrongly configured with a too incomplete
> PKCS#11 provider...
This could be also mentioned in release notes...

> A question: do you believe we should covert
> the failure into a warning for PKCS#11 tools?
> It could be more user friendly but at another hand
> if someone ignores the warning it won't change the
> fact that *all* other tools will fail...

Personally, I like verbose error messages. I think that it is not necessary to 
hide the underlying error code etc. Simply some additional text would help.

Thank you for your time!

-- 
Petr^2 Spacek