| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500 |
| 2 |
solar <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If you do that please set it as a blocker for the .54 release. |
| 5 |
> Reintroducing ChangeLog/metadata.xml to Manifests would be a undesired |
| 6 |
> regression. Nothing in the portage as of <=.53 make direct use of |
| 7 |
> those two files and there is no security value in bloating the digest |
| 8 |
> format with them. Thats why they were removed 2.0.51.21 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Making the argument for maybe portage in the future will use them is |
| 11 |
> not valid as they are currently omited and we/I have been told before |
| 12 |
> by the portage team (ferringb & jstubbs iirc??) that portage itself |
| 13 |
> wont be doing any .xml parsing in it's core. IE So that means not |
| 14 |
> today nor tomorrow will anything need to depend on those files in |
| 15 |
> order to build. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Name a single portage version that does *not generate* manifest entries |
| 18 |
for them (hint: there is none). They are only ignored right now during |
| 19 |
verification. So it's in no way a regression. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Marius |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 27 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives