| 1 |
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:29:31 -0600 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Signing elsewhere isn't mandatory yet. |
| 4 |
| |
| 5 |
| Deal with it ;) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
In order to deal with it, I'd also have to come up with a solution to |
| 8 |
distributing keys for Gentoo developers. That's a separate issue which |
| 9 |
must be addressed separately. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A wording change from "may" to "should be" is fine by me, but "must be" |
| 12 |
is not, at least until we have a real signing system in place. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
| > | Already pointed out that this won't fly looking forward, it |
| 15 |
| > | implicitly assumes a single repository. |
| 16 |
| > |
| 17 |
| > Again, we can deal with that if Portage ever gets multiple repo |
| 18 |
| > support. Until it does, I'm not trying to guess how it's going to |
| 19 |
| > end up being implemented. |
| 20 |
| |
| 21 |
| *cough* PORTDIR_OVERLAY *cough* |
| 22 |
| |
| 23 |
| Already have multiple repo support. Assumed you meant standalone, in |
| 24 |
| which case I still think you're dodging support that must be there. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Overlays override on conflicts, they don't run in parallel. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
| Changing it after the fact because it wasn't design with an extra bit |
| 29 |
| of forward thinking isn't something I'm incredibly game for. Yes |
| 30 |
| it's extra work for you, but you're proposing the change ;) |
| 31 |
| |
| 32 |
| You're going for forward compatibility... this is just that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm going for not making any design decisions which will preclude |
| 35 |
reasonable future changes. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Anti-XML, anti-newbie conspiracy) |
| 39 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 40 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives