From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EooyP-0006fh-2t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:24:41 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBKLNSvT007382; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:23:28 GMT Received: from mail01.emarketsouth.com (mail01.emarketsouth.com [208.247.233.6]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBKLLJlF010437 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:21:20 GMT Received: (qmail 28037 invoked by uid 399); 20 Dec 2005 21:21:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO onyx) (64.192.54.4) by mail01.emarketsouth.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2005 21:21:07 -0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] December 15th Meeting Summary From: solar To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20051219202943.6c8693f9@sven.genone.homeip.net> References: <200512152247.21770.vapier@gentoo.org> <20051219183716.13f195c4@sven.genone.homeip.net> <1135017904.11584.70.camel@onyx> <20051219202943.6c8693f9@sven.genone.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:21:10 -0500 Message-Id: <1135113670.10361.128.camel@onyx> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: de86e873-5c5d-4694-96b8-6a9ceb6e9def X-Archives-Hash: e8e5a4b2a83b895066c95f531db43aa1 On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 20:29 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500 > solar 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 Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list