| 1 |
Richard Fish writes: |
| 2 |
> Unfortunately the Gentoo dev's have taken the rather unusual |
| 3 |
> step of _breaking the tree_ due to a security problem. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Thanks for the info. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I would really wish that there was some mechanism in place to make |
| 8 |
sure that the tree was never broken. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The current situation is very annoying for users that update often, |
| 11 |
and also makes Portage mostly unusable for automatic server upgrades |
| 12 |
:-(. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 1. Unmerge both mono-tools and gecko-sharp. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That did the trick. |
| 17 |
I'll have to remerge it later when/if the tree gets fixed... |
| 18 |
Thanks! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
(I see now that it was just me that didn't understand how to use |
| 21 |
--tree, which makes much of this conversation off-topic... Sorry about |
| 22 |
that!) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137665 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm thinking that a Subversion pre-commit hook to secure integrity of |
| 27 |
the Portage tree would be cool. The changes listed in the bug above |
| 28 |
would have to be committed atomically, or it wouldn't get through the |
| 29 |
integrity check. Perhaps there could be a staging area in the form of |
| 30 |
a branch where the hypothetical integrity checker wouldn't run. Ho |
| 31 |
hum, wishful thinking. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives