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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <solar@gentoo.org>
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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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 <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