TrustStore CRD

[nightkr]

Description

Fixes #410.

rust/p12 is imported from hjiayz/p12@9983420 (fff63d1), can't really do much about CLA failures from before that point (and beyond that I've kept the changes fairly minimal to enable our use case). Discussed at https://stackable-workspace.slack.com/archives/C033A863YPL/p1741869321744189.

Definition of Done Checklist

• Not all of these items are applicable to all PRs, the author should update this template to only leave the boxes in that are relevant
• Please make sure all these things are done and tick the boxes

# Author
- [x] Changes are OpenShift compatible
- [x] CRD changes approved
- [x] CRD documentation for all fields, following the [style guide](https://docs.stackable.tech/home/nightly/contributor/docs/style-guide).
- [x] Helm chart can be installed and deployed operator works
- [x] Integration tests passed (for non trivial changes)
- [x] Changes need to be "offline" compatible

# Reviewer
- [x] Code contains useful comments
- [x] Code contains useful logging statements
- [x] (Integration-)Test cases added
- [x] Documentation added or updated. Follows the [style guide](https://docs.stackable.tech/home/nightly/contributor/docs/style-guide).
- [x] Changelog updated
- [x] Cargo.toml only contains references to git tags (not specific commits or branches)

# Acceptance
- [ ] Feature Tracker has been updated
- [ ] Proper release label has been added
- [ ] [Roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/stackabletech/projects/25/views/1) has been updated

[siegfriedweber]

The following questions are open:

• Allow customers to request CA cert (e.g. for external clients) #410 (comment)
• https://github.com/stackabletech/decisions/issues/42#issuecomment-2754317110

I did not review the complete p12 directory, but only the changes to v0.6.3.

[nightkr]

Ah didn't see #410 (comment) - replying to that in there.

[siegfriedweber]

LGTM

[lfrancke]

I'm not super happy mixing licenses in a single repo (I do understand that we already implicitly do by having dependencies to otherwise licensed items but tooling wise that is different).
I looked at it and it looks like we follow the license properly, haven't removed anything, attribution etc. is there but I see the danger of someone accidentally cleaning something up at some point....

I'm unsure.

@soenkeliebau Opinions?

[soenkeliebau]

I'm inclined to vote with "perfect is the enemy of done" here and leave it as is..
Otherwise we'd have to move the fork into a repo of its own, patch the toml and have one more thing we need to version .. not terrible probably, but neither is the risk I see by having it in here.

One other idea I had was to use something like https://github.com/itmettkeDE/cargo-patch but that'll probably play havoc with SBOMs etc..

As I said, I struggle to have a strong opinion.