| 1 |
W dniu pon, 06.11.2017 o godzinie 19∶13 +0000, użytkownik Robin H. |
| 2 |
Johnson napisał: |
| 3 |
> +1 overall, just one timeline clarification. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:58:21PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
> > T + 7 days |
| 7 |
> > ---------- |
| 8 |
> > Set: |
| 9 |
> > manifest-hashes = BLAKE2B SHA512 |
| 10 |
> > manifest-required-hashes = SHA512 |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > New Manifest entries will use the new hashes but Portage will keep the |
| 13 |
> > old hash set whenever it would need to refetch old distfiles. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Query: |
| 16 |
> Do we need to wait for it to be stable before making this change? |
| 17 |
> Shouldn't old stable versions of Portage continue to verify SHA512 fine? |
| 18 |
> Mostly I think devs need to be using a new enough Portage that can |
| 19 |
> generate the BLAKE2B entries, but it shouldn't impact user Portage |
| 20 |
> versions. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Devs are who I'm worried about. Those 7 days should give them enough |
| 24 |
time to upgrade their stable Portage. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives