Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ChangeLog generation - continued discussions
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:46:30
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] ChangeLog generation - continued discussions by "Robin H. Johnson"
On 24-08-2011 09:20:00 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:01:07AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > [snip] > > I would like to put an additional issue on the table which I encountered > > while implementing fully from CVS generated ChangeLogs for the Prefix > > rsync tree. > [snip] > And all of this is impacted by how we do thin manifests and commit > signing.
> Thin manifests are those that contain ONLY entries for files not covered > by another (direct or indirect) hash in the VCS. Git's use of SHA1 > allows a conversion from Git+thin Manifest to classical Manifest2.
How does this work with generating the other hashes?
> Commit signing has a few implications/side-effects: > - commits are signed so Manifests are NOT signed anymore.
I assume this is ok, and has no effect in terms of guarantees one makes about the content.
> - During the conversion to classical Manifest2, we need to create > automated signatures (see the tree-signing GLEPs for MetaManifest). > - As a side advantage of the automated Manifests/signatures, we can use > the Manifest2 changes proposed in the tree-signing GLEPs to cover ALL > of the profiles and eclasses. > > I'm going to be away Thursday till Monday, so the lack of any further > impact from me doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, rather just that > I'm away from the Internet.
Your input is much appreciated (if not authoritive). I hope you'll catch up on this discussion after you return. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level