| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager |
| 8 |
>> should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable |
| 9 |
>> indicator of the mechanism which should be used to validate the |
| 10 |
>> integrity of the cache entry. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Validate it against what? If EAPI is unsupported, the package |
| 13 |
> manager can't make use of INHERITED to see what DIGESTS means. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
In the example given, the DIGESTS version identifier would serve to |
| 16 |
indicate that the INHERITED field behaves as required by the |
| 17 |
validation mechanism (regardless of EAPI). If INHERITED can no |
| 18 |
longer be used like that in a new EAPI, the DIGESTS format/version |
| 19 |
will have to be bumped. |
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmYpLMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaN/XwCeNcczP2k4J4LKMDxbmVnWV8v/ |
| 27 |
cz8AniLUx7fSpEo717IB3nezFZIdcwkr |
| 28 |
=79XI |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives