Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Tree breakage
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:05:34
Message-Id: 20040402110528.74b93806.spider@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Tree breakage by Mike Frysinger
begin  quote
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:16:02 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:

> and the reason i mentioned before is that manifests mean nothing ... > the 'security' they were designed to offer is non existent and as > such, i never felt they were worth regenerating
Well they do mean some things. a) They block retarded rsync mirror issues from breasking compilations and other such. (theres been a lot of such cases from time to time, single-char errors that munge) b) The manifests are checked with new portage, that means that all the times you break this, others are caught with an hard error that will refuse to merge it since the Manifest doesn't match. I never thought that it was a security solution as things are, I don't treat it as that. I see it as an infrastructure solution to prevent issues with transfers, Modified ebuilds / Conflicts or rsync server bangups. If/when they are signed it is a security solution, but right now its infrastructure. And I'm annoyed that people break said sanitychecks. //Spider -- begin .signature Tortured users / Laughing in pain See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end