On Saturday 26 November 2005 11:12, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
>
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests and
> > Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger portage tree
> > (in the l
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests and
> Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger portage tree
> (in the long term the format will be phased out hopefully) or rather
> wait
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 20:57 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Nope, not missing anything. Thought I said it, compability isn't a
> > reason to hold this up anymore, only asking if people want multi-hashes
> > now at the expense of a bigger tree when Manifest2 comes along.
>
> I'm referring to portage
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:38 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I'd rather wait for Manifest2 support.
> > What is the ETA for the GLEP and the implementation after i?
>
> GLEP I still have to start writing (mostly a reformatting of a mail I
> sent a long time ago), there is already a prototype impleme
Marius Mauch wrote: [Thu Nov 24 2005, 04:38:44AM CST]
> GLEP I still have to start writing (mostly a reformatting of a mail I
> sent a long time ago), there is already a prototype implementation
> (doesn't cover everything yet but works generally), target is
> for when current trunk will be release
On Thursday 24 November 2005 10:07, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:20 +0900
>
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
> > >
> > > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > O
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:33:34 +0100
Marc Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> [..]
> > So much for background information, now to the actual question:
> > Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests
> > and Manifests with the result of a short and mid
Marius Mauch wrote:
[..]
So much for background information, now to the actual question:
Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests and
Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger portage tree
(in the long term the format will be phased out hopefully) or rathe
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:20 +0900
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
> >
> > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage:
> > >
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
>
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage:
> > - The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others if
> > implemented li
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage:
> - The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others if
> implemented like with the second mod), if you want to try it yourself
> see the a
So, along with the gpg signing stuff came along again the question to
have multiple hash formats in digests and manifests.
Current status is that portage only generates MD5 checksums and can
verify both MD5 and SHA1 checksums. Creation of SHA1 is also possible
but has so far been disabled as older
12 matches
Mail list logo
