Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP58 - MetaManifest
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:27:18
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] GLEP58 - MetaManifest by "Robin H. Johnson"
You'll find below an email from solar to Robin about MetaManifest. I'm
adding it to this thread (with solar's authorization) as it seems


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote:
> Robin, > > I recall you wanted me to mail you what we talked about last nite in > #gentoo-portage and I'll CC: the council so they have an idea what to > maybe expect. > > So in our talking last night we discussed the fact that if the Manifest > format has to change why not just get rid of it all together, and save > some serious in tree space with the new MetaManifest's taking over all > together. This would include MetaManifest's at the 2-level. > You said the MetaManifest would need about 4 fields in them to describe > the distfiles etc. Devs would still push normal Manifest's to the cvs > tree so DIST can be obtained by the backend infra scripts. But those > Manifest's could be dropped from the mirroring. if [ -e CVS ] then > portage would need to use the existing Manifest's > > This method would hands down win my vote. As you know I'm not a fan of > format changes in general as they can make the Gentoo experience suck, > but if we are going to change formats. Lets do it right. > > The only downside I can see in this method is for people like drobbins > who mirror our tree but overlay right on top of it then provide it back > out. In such cases we should provide our backend scripts to the public > so they can re MetaManifest. > > I'm probably forgetting all sorts of details from the chat. But > hopefully this is enough to remind you, as well as giving the other > council ppl an idea of what to maybe expect.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP58 - MetaManifest "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>