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
1 begin quote
2 On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:16:02 -0500
3 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
4
5 > and the reason i mentioned before is that manifests mean nothing ...
6 > the 'security' they were designed to offer is non existent and as
7 > such, i never felt they were worth regenerating
8
9
10 Well they do mean some things.
11 a) They block retarded rsync mirror issues from breasking compilations
12 and other such. (theres been a lot of such cases from time to time,
13 single-char errors that munge)
14
15 b) The manifests are checked with new portage, that means that all the
16 times you break this, others are caught with an hard error that will
17 refuse to merge it since the Manifest doesn't match.
18
19 I never thought that it was a security solution as things are, I don't
20 treat it as that. I see it as an infrastructure solution to prevent
21 issues with transfers, Modified ebuilds / Conflicts or rsync server
22 bangups.
23
24 If/when they are signed it is a security solution, but right now its
25 infrastructure. And I'm annoyed that people break said sanitychecks.
26
27
28
29 //Spider
30
31
32 --
33 begin .signature
34 Tortured users / Laughing in pain
35 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
36 end