1 |
On Monday 19 of April 2010 08:21:27 Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 18-04-2010 23:52:34 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > I've did as much as I could without getting more information, and |
4 |
> > turning everything around. What it can is: |
5 |
> > 1) Detect '.git' and enable Thin Manifests (only dirty check), |
6 |
> |
7 |
> how about we use a file like manifest1_obsolete to switch from fat to |
8 |
> thin? |
9 |
|
10 |
Any reason for this? |
11 |
|
12 |
It shouldn't cause any merge conflicts as the difference between 'fat' and |
13 |
'slim' are lines added/removed (I suppose DIST hashes would be generated in |
14 |
the same form as they are now, so SHA1, SHA256 and RMD160). It's just over- |
15 |
complicating things imho. |
16 |
|
17 |
Portage already is aware of scm vs rsync repositories as for instance some |
18 |
repoman checks are omitted for those scm ones. Therefore it seems correct to |
19 |
rely on this mechanism and let portage/repoman generate right (TM) Manifest |
20 |
for repository being used. |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
regards |
24 |
MM |