1 |
On 19-04-2010 11:38:30 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 19 of April 2010 08:21:27 Fabian Groffen wrote: |
3 |
> > On 18-04-2010 23:52:34 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> > > I've did as much as I could without getting more information, and |
5 |
> > > turning everything around. What it can is: |
6 |
> > > 1) Detect '.git' and enable Thin Manifests (only dirty check), |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > how about we use a file like manifest1_obsolete to switch from fat to |
9 |
> > thin? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Any reason for this? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> It shouldn't cause any merge conflicts as the difference between 'fat' and |
14 |
> 'slim' are lines added/removed (I suppose DIST hashes would be generated in |
15 |
> the same form as they are now, so SHA1, SHA256 and RMD160). It's just over- |
16 |
> complicating things imho. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Portage already is aware of scm vs rsync repositories as for instance some |
19 |
> repoman checks are omitted for those scm ones. Therefore it seems correct to |
20 |
> rely on this mechanism and let portage/repoman generate right (TM) Manifest |
21 |
> for repository being used. |
22 |
|
23 |
In my opinion they are dirty hacks that rely on their consumers: cvs |
24 |
(Gentoo) and svn (Gentoo Prefix) are treated as full, while Git |
25 |
(Funtoo), hg and bzr (Fauli) omit e.g. the ChangeLog check. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Fabian Groffen |
30 |
Gentoo on a different level |