| 1 |
Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:09, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>>Well, the vote was more for the SHA1 change actually as that's the one |
| 6 |
>>triggering the size increase. The pycrypto stuff itself doesn't do |
| 7 |
>>anything really, it would just make the size increase more apparent. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Hmm.. I thought it was for hashes supported by pycrypto being added into |
| 10 |
> Manifest before Manifest2 comes along. If it was with regard to SHA1 then I |
| 11 |
> take back my vote to delay. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yeah, I guess the mail could be read both ways. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>>Don't think so given that offhand I don't even know what getlist() does ... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> getlist() is defined in emerge and is used to access the system and world |
| 18 |
> sets. It wouldn't be too hard to customize it to handle user sets and modify |
| 19 |
> other code to support them but the "can't combine sets and atoms" rule would |
| 20 |
> get a bit messy. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So gutting of emerge ... nope, tried that two times already, but gave up |
| 23 |
after hitting too many direct references to system and world. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>>Oh, btw, two things that are in trunk but weren't listed in your |
| 26 |
>>original mail: |
| 27 |
>>- the rewritten versioning code (including the cvs and mult-suffix |
| 28 |
>>enhancements) |
| 29 |
>>- finally killing of the stupid "masked by -*" message |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> That makes the current list for .54: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> * autouse death |
| 35 |
> * cache rewrite |
| 36 |
> * dyn_install cleanup |
| 37 |
> * einfo logging |
| 38 |
> * exec cleanup |
| 39 |
> * flattened vdb *DEPENDs |
| 40 |
> * hash support via pycrypto |
| 41 |
> * ldconfig fix |
| 42 |
> * metascan/auxget |
| 43 |
> * postsync hooks |
| 44 |
> * recursive grab* |
| 45 |
> * RRDEPEND/LDEPEND |
| 46 |
> * sha1 enabling |
| 47 |
> * splitdebug |
| 48 |
> * vdb empty file culling |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Are we about there yet? Also, what does this mean for 2.1/2.2? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Well, if that featurelist is .54 then I really don't see a point for |
| 53 |
making a 2.1 or 2.2 release line. Before your mail starting this thread |
| 54 |
I assumed that .54 would just contain the ldconfig fix, the hash stuff |
| 55 |
and maybe a few other minor things, while trunk would become 2.2. |
| 56 |
But if things like elog, the new cache subsystem, splitdebug or the |
| 57 |
*DEPEND changes don't qualify for a "minor" version bump, then I can't |
| 58 |
think of anything that would. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Marius |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives