Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:15:46
Message-Id: 20090222195718.GC20371@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests by "Robin H. Johnson"
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:29:32AM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Portage needs minor changes for slim Manifests anyway: specifically, to > check the files against the Git index rather than the Manifest. It's NOT > that the files from the tree directly are unsigned, but rather that > their digests/signatures exist in Git instead of the Manifest.
I just wanted to clarify this, as Robert points out I wasn't sufficiently clear with one of the details. It's not that some files aren't going to have digests anymore, but that the digests are going to be in the VCS rather than explicitly in the Manifest. Portage does explicitly need support for the changes, but that was inherent to the idea of using slim Manifests for the main repository, long before overlays are used. Existing design: 1) Manifest: DIST - digest of distfiles located in DISTDIR AUX/EBUILD/MISC - digest of files located in the tree New Design: 1) slim Manifest: DIST - digest of distfiles located in DISTDIR _AND_ 2) VCS index: SHA1/* digest of files located in the tree BOTH sources must be present. A slim Manifest would not be valid without the VCS containing digests of the files not contained in the Manifest. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : robbat2@g.o GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com>