1 |
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:47:15PM +0200, hasufell wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/07/2013 09:55 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote: |
4 |
> >> AFAIK, the status is "unimplemented, and nobody's working on it". |
5 |
> > No, I did post implementation patches for much of it back when the GLEPs |
6 |
> > were in process. The overwhelming message from other devs at the time |
7 |
> > was that it should happen at the same time or shortly after the Git |
8 |
> > migration, and that in the short-term, if you needed that security, you |
9 |
> > should be using the signed portage snapshot tarballs. |
10 |
> So the git migration IS actually a blocker? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Do we really expect it to happen? Should we wait? Why? |
13 |
The computational cost to generating the layers of MetaManifest is |
14 |
significantly eased with git. But the best argument was actually taking |
15 |
advantage of thin Manifests. |
16 |
|
17 |
When we move to Git, all the per-package Manifests are going to be |
18 |
thin-Manifest (DIST) entries only. If we KEEP them intact, and put ALL |
19 |
of the other (git-implicit) entries in the MetaManifest, we only need to |
20 |
inject very few files into the rsync tree. |
21 |
|
22 |
> I'd say let's push for it. I am willing to do a lot of testing. |
23 |
The code support shouldn't be held up by the Git migration however. The |
24 |
code for it needs to be done, I doubt my old patches even apply anymore; |
25 |
Portage has changed significantly since I wrote them. |
26 |
|
27 |
You also asked about PMS, and I'm wondering if PMS specifies the |
28 |
Manifest contents at all, and/or if it needs updates for MetaManifest. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
32 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
33 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
34 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |