On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
indicator of the mechanism which should be used to validate the
integrity of the cache
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
indicator of the
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
reliable indicator of the mechanism which should be used to
validate the integrity of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
reliable indicator of the
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI
has changed (example
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
to regenerate the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a
package manager. And even then,
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:48:44 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported
by a package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just
do a minor stable
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:24AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format could stand to die.
The repository format is an ever growing mess- leave it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:24AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format could stand
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
funtoo project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format could stand to die.
The repository format is an ever growing mess- leave it as is and
work
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
funtoo project is the only one which I can name offhand.
However, the ability to distribute cache
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
snip ideas
So... flame away.
When I first read Zac's original email, I was sure that a change was
required, and I'm sure now as well (I personally find the cache stuff
pretty clunky). However, I think that a time has come
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
funtoo project is the only one
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.
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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.
How
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:15:55 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
How much do you trust overlay maintainers?
It shouldn't be that hard to sandbox the overlays for cache
generation.
Uh. Really? I'd be interested to see how you plan to pull that one off.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Petteri Räty a écrit :
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
hexadecimal digits of the SHA-1 digest.
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This
creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing distribution of metadata
cache via version control systems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest format, I suggest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This
creates an unnecessary
-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
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
hexadecimal digits of the SHA-1 digest.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest format, I suggest
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 12:36 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Samstag, den
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 12:36 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
But if your target is to reduce the size of the metadata cache, why
store the hashes of the
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:23:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, usually you don't keep intermediate or generated files in a
VCS, so why the metadata?
People who distribute overlays commonly ask if it's possible to
distribute metadata cache with the overlay. Using a format
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:23:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, usually you don't keep intermediate or generated files in a
VCS, so why the metadata?
People who distribute overlays commonly ask if it's
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a
perfect example of doing it wrong...
Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a
perfect example of doing it wrong...
Well, if you want to use timestamps, the
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, it's just encouraging bad development practices.
It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment.
Not storing generated content under revision control is hardly an
arbitrary judgement. It's a well accepted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, it's just encouraging bad development practices.
It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment.
Not storing generated content under
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'd like to add a new metadata cache value called DIGESTS which will
contain a space separated list of digests which can be
used to validate the metadata cache. Like INHERITED and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
hexadecimal digits of the SHA-1 digest. The rationale for limiting
it to 10 digits (out of 40) is to save
41 matches
Mail list logo
