Re: [gentoo-dev] new repoman check

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 15:16 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o>
> > wrote:
> > | I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them.
> > | So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it?
> >
> > Well that's just it. I didn't say there were legitimate reasons, I just
> > didn't commit myself to saying that there weren't.
>
> Fair enough, but if you read "can" as "could" in my posts, they still
> make sense.
>
> Two reasons for CVS ebuilds that aren't hardmasked, by the way:
>
> One: see emacs-cvs-22*; it's more reliable than the emacs-22* snapshot.
>      (Something like this is only for ~arch.)

> Two: when a specific revision is wanted, but snapshots aren't possible
>      for legal reasons. (This could even be marked stable.)

If it can't be checksummed it should never be marked stable. *VCS* 
ebuilds simply can't be checksumed and there are far to many ways 
to abuse such things. Think MiM

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list