| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 20:29 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500 |
| 3 |
> solar <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > If you do that please set it as a blocker for the .54 release. |
| 6 |
> > Reintroducing ChangeLog/metadata.xml to Manifests would be a undesired |
| 7 |
> > regression. Nothing in the portage as of <=.53 make direct use of |
| 8 |
> > those two files and there is no security value in bloating the digest |
| 9 |
> > format with them. Thats why they were removed 2.0.51.21 |
| 10 |
... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Name a single portage version that does *not generate* manifest entries |
| 14 |
> for them (hint: there is none). They are only ignored right now during |
| 15 |
> verification. So it's in no way a regression. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
sigh I just checked and you are correct it does still create them, so |
| 18 |
I'll happily recant on the word regression. It however seems pointless |
| 19 |
to include them in creation. Currently the 2 unused lines are taking up |
| 20 |
about ~1.1M in the tree, when we have several additional hashes I can |
| 21 |
only imagine that it would use significantly more space than currently. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
solar <solar@g.o> |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives