| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:08:29PM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Beyond that, IMO it's now at the "needs a proposal champion to clean it |
| 3 |
> up and present it to the council" stage, at least at the "council |
| 4 |
> declared priority" level for getting the requirements into repoman, the |
| 5 |
> CVS server, and perhaps the PMs (I don't know what stage they're at, |
| 6 |
> possibly all they need is a switch flipped?). |
| 7 |
It doesn't need cleaning up. I wrote the tree-signing GLEPs a few years |
| 8 |
ago, and those were approved by the council, really they just need |
| 9 |
updating to a recent Portage and usage. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
They provide better support than just getting every developer to sign |
| 12 |
the Manifests, because to do so while eclasses are unsigned is a giant |
| 13 |
security hole. MetaManifest in the proposal covers that by getting the |
| 14 |
entire tree to a state of being signed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Talking about which, at the PM user level, is there a per-repo/overlay |
| 17 |
> switch? If not, it should strongly be considered. |
| 18 |
Yes. See layout.conf/repo.conf. Also controls usage of thin Manifests. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 23 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 24 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives