Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o>
To: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:39:35
Message-Id: 1235065170.26104.11.camel@peripatetic.hades
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests by "Robin H. Johnson"
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 17:18 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:27:41PM +0100, Robert Buchholz wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > Using the converse, all files covered by AUX, DIST, MISC have GIT > > > SHA1 commit ids. Explicitly performing a checksum on them is not > > > needed, just extract it from Git. > > These hashes would need to be regenerated for the rsync though, because > > otherwise it does not provide integrity and this would make tree > > signing impossible. Overlays would have to abandon the hashes though, > > otherwise you'll get the same merge trouble again. > On the git->rsync gateway: > For non-distfiles: > 1. Extract SHA1 from Git > 2. Compare to actual file (Git does this implicitly, esp if you have > signed Git commits, but you can check again if you want). > 3. Generate SHA256/RMD160/other. > 4. Append the full hash to Manifest.
So how would this work for the developers themselves? Do we use a separate Manifest.dist which would be used to generate the server Manifest (and could be used locally to)? This would be one extra, barely-used disk block per package leading to a >50 MB blow-up in the sync tree size (more for the git tree, but that, I presume, is not a problem). This would mean that local manifests would need to be regenerated after every sync. I supposed it should not be too hard to find all files affected by the git pull/emerge --sync, and then regenerate only those. Or have I misunderstood the proposal? -- Arun


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-scm] gentoo-x86 on git - Manifests "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>