| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:38:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 00:03 -0700, Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Remember, portage already has a decent amount of signed content |
| 4 |
> > verification builtin, and is getting more. Just because it's not |
| 5 |
> > currently used, as the debate on strength and keyring handling hasn't been |
| 6 |
> > settled, doesn't mean the capacity doesn't exist. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> One other advantage with this is we will be starting from a known |
| 9 |
> portage version. This allows us to not have to worry about backwards |
| 10 |
> compatibility. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Reliant on portage- we're sitting on forward/backward compatibility |
| 13 |
handling for ebuilds (EAPI), few months before we cut over and require |
| 14 |
people to be running an EAPI capable portage- that said, we don't have |
| 15 |
any versionning yet for profiles. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Proposals welcome for that one, since it's required (recall the 2.0.50 |
| 18 |
bug for cascaded profiles, anyone? ;). |
| 19 |
~harring |
Archives