| 1 |
You'll find below an email from solar to Robin about MetaManifest. I'm |
| 2 |
adding it to this thread (with solar's authorization) as it seems |
| 3 |
pertinent. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Denis. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> Robin, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I recall you wanted me to mail you what we talked about last nite in |
| 11 |
> #gentoo-portage and I'll CC: the council so they have an idea what to |
| 12 |
> maybe expect. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So in our talking last night we discussed the fact that if the Manifest |
| 15 |
> format has to change why not just get rid of it all together, and save |
| 16 |
> some serious in tree space with the new MetaManifest's taking over all |
| 17 |
> together. This would include MetaManifest's at the 2-level. |
| 18 |
> You said the MetaManifest would need about 4 fields in them to describe |
| 19 |
> the distfiles etc. Devs would still push normal Manifest's to the cvs |
| 20 |
> tree so DIST can be obtained by the backend infra scripts. But those |
| 21 |
> Manifest's could be dropped from the mirroring. if [ -e CVS ] then |
| 22 |
> portage would need to use the existing Manifest's |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This method would hands down win my vote. As you know I'm not a fan of |
| 25 |
> format changes in general as they can make the Gentoo experience suck, |
| 26 |
> but if we are going to change formats. Lets do it right. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The only downside I can see in this method is for people like drobbins |
| 29 |
> who mirror our tree but overlay right on top of it then provide it back |
| 30 |
> out. In such cases we should provide our backend scripts to the public |
| 31 |
> so they can re MetaManifest. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I'm probably forgetting all sorts of details from the chat. But |
| 34 |
> hopefully this is enough to remind you, as well as giving the other |
| 35 |
> council ppl an idea of what to maybe expect. |
Archives