-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Petteri Räty wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800 >>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to >>>>> keep track of and store junk under version control. >>>> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I >>>> said, I think we have a justifiable exception to the rule. >>> If you start encouraging this approach, are you prepared to make >>> Portage warn extremely noisily if a repository-provided (as opposed to >>> user generated) cache entry is found to be stale? >> Sure. Otherwise, it's confusing for the user when dependency >> calculations take longer than usual for no apparent reason. >> > > It would probably be useful to provide a central rsync infra for > overlays where overlay maintainers could subscribe their overlays to and > the machine would pull in their VCS and generate the metadata for them.
That's fine if somebody wants to implement it. The introduction of DIGESTS data in the metadata cache does not preclude it. Like I just said in another reply [1], the ability to distribute cache via a vcs is only an ancillary feature which is made possible by the DIGESTS data. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_760e199e74796fed7e56236f248efe9e.xml - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmQj+UACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOajACePIoV6STCE/bh7SB8X/ch4phk bpAAnjsYR9UgBVP26wIldvCX2OFNe4yy =kYc/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
