| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 14:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 01 April 2004 04:05 am, Spider wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm growing a bit tired of all you folks you consiously brak the tree |
| 4 |
> > and introduce update-blockers by not re-generating Manifest files when |
| 5 |
> > you commit. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> i'm probably the biggest person who does this ... and the reason i mentioned |
| 8 |
> before is that manifests mean nothing ... |
| 9 |
> the 'security' they were designed to offer is non existent and as such, i |
| 10 |
> never felt they were worth regenerating |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> if we had, say signed manifests, i would most def make sure to use all the |
| 13 |
> proper tools to make sure the packages were signed properly ... |
| 14 |
> -mike |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> -- |
| 17 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The problem is that FEATURES="strict" exists and is documented, so |
| 20 |
things will cause breakage, I believe, if the Manifests contain false |
| 21 |
information. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I wonder if the infrastructure team are able to arrange it so that |
| 24 |
commits without repoman simply won't be allowed.. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 27 |
Developer and Project Co-ordinator, |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E |
| 31 |
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E |
Archives