| 1 |
--- Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:43:28 -0700 (PDT) |
| 3 |
> Andrei Slavoiu <ansla80@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Hello, I want to raise a issue with the way that |
| 6 |
> > package integrity verification is done by portage. |
| 7 |
> For |
| 8 |
> > an example of such an issue see bug 136742. |
| 9 |
> > The idea is that portage now checks the Manifest |
| 10 |
> as a |
| 11 |
> > whole, not allowing a version of the package to be |
| 12 |
> > emerged if any of the files mentioned by the |
| 13 |
> Manifest |
| 14 |
> > fail the verification. This makes unstable ebuilds |
| 15 |
> > wich change often and have a tendency to break |
| 16 |
> from |
| 17 |
> > time to time prevent the emerge of a stable |
| 18 |
> version of |
| 19 |
> > the same package. |
| 20 |
> > Do you think there is any way to fix this in |
| 21 |
> portage? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> This isn't exactly new behavior with FEATURES=strict |
| 24 |
> (which is the |
| 25 |
> default setting). |
| 26 |
Now I get it. So could somebody add a line to |
| 27 |
make.conf.example that says which features are on by |
| 28 |
default? I didn't notice strict was on. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
__________________________________________________ |
| 31 |
Do You Yahoo!? |
| 32 |
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around |
| 33 |
http://mail.yahoo.com |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives