| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:47:21 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the |
| 7 |
>>agenda: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>- Marius: decision on multi-hash for Manifest1 |
| 10 |
>>there was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to |
| 11 |
>>review/decide on this issue since we werent able to locate any |
| 12 |
>>portage devs at the time of the meeting ... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Well, it would help if the actual meeting date would be announced and |
| 16 |
> not pushed back without notice ;) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>>so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the reasons |
| 20 |
>>our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally |
| 21 |
>>sent by Marius [1], then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1). |
| 22 |
>>that is, the portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and |
| 23 |
>>include support for SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1 |
| 24 |
>>should not be included as having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Ok, not a problem. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
>>it was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and |
| 31 |
>>metadata.xml files from the current Manifest schema as digesting |
| 32 |
>>them serves no real purpose. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> You're all aware that this would break <portage-2.0.51.20 (so any |
| 36 |
> portage version older than 6 months)? Also while they don't affect the |
| 37 |
> build process they contain important information and are/will be parsed |
| 38 |
> by portage, so I'm not that comfortable with dropping also the option |
| 39 |
> of verifying them permanently. |
| 40 |
FYI, that version of portage is already broken by the virtuals glep |
| 41 |
and X11's virtual/stuff so no harm there ;) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-Alec Warner (antarus) |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives