Re: [gentoo-dev] December 15th Meeting Summary

[solar <solar@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 20:29 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500
> solar <solar@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > If you do that please set it as a blocker for the .54 release. 
> > Reintroducing ChangeLog/metadata.xml to Manifests would be a undesired
> > regression. Nothing in the portage as of <=.53 make direct use of
> > those two files and there is no security value in bloating the digest
> > format with them. Thats why they were removed 2.0.51.21
...


> Name a single portage version that does *not generate* manifest entries
> for them (hint: there is none). They are only ignored right now during
> verification. So it's in no way a regression.

sigh I just checked and you are correct it does still create them, so
I'll happily recant on the word regression. It however seems pointless
to include them in creation. Currently the 2 unused lines are taking up
about ~1.1M in the tree, when we have several additional hashes I can
only imagine that it would use significantly more space than currently.

-- 
solar <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list