| 1 |
this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the agenda: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
- Marius: decision on multi-hash for Manifest1 |
| 4 |
there was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to review/decide on |
| 5 |
this issue since we werent able to locate any portage devs at the time of the |
| 6 |
meeting ... so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the reasons |
| 7 |
our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally sent by |
| 8 |
Marius [1], then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1). that is, the |
| 9 |
portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and include support for |
| 10 |
SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1 should not be included as |
| 11 |
having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless. further more, we hope this is just a |
| 12 |
hold over until Manifest2 is ironed out/approved/implemented/deployed. it |
| 13 |
was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and metadata.xml files |
| 14 |
from the current Manifest schema as digesting them serves no real purpose. |
| 15 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/33434 |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- Council: portage signing |
| 18 |
shortly after our November meeting, a nice summary was posted by Robin Johnson |
| 19 |
that covered signing issues from top to bottom. as such, it was felt that |
| 20 |
trying to throw together a GLEP would not be beneficial. instead we will be |
| 21 |
adding a constant agenda item to future council meetings as to the status of |
| 22 |
portage signing issues to keep the project from slipping into obscurity |
| 23 |
again. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
full meeting log: |
| 26 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051215.txt |
| 27 |
-mike |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives