Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:47:21 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the
agenda:
- Marius: decision on multi-hash for Manifest1
there was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to
review/decide on this issue since we werent able to locate any
portage devs at the time of the meeting ...
Well, it would help if the actual meeting date would be announced and
not pushed back without notice ;)
so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the reasons
our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally
sent by Marius [1], then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1).
that is, the portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and
include support for SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1
should not be included as having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless.
Ok, not a problem.
it was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and
metadata.xml files from the current Manifest schema as digesting
them serves no real purpose.
You're all aware that this would break <portage-2.0.51.20 (so any
portage version older than 6 months)? Also while they don't affect the
build process they contain important information and are/will be parsed
by portage, so I'm not that comfortable with dropping also the option
of verifying them permanently.
FYI, that version of portage is already broken by the virtuals glep
and X11's virtual/stuff so no harm there ;)
-Alec Warner (antarus)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
