From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32CC1396D9 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 07:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E1F492BC082; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 07:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 942262BC051 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 07:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F062E33BEA7; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 07:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1508569799.844.1.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:09:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1508440120.19870.14.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 9f25f492-de2c-4b1c-a901-940af804ce6f X-Archives-Hash: e8640811adcabf2b1ad45a55f6c8d3f8 W dniu sob, 21.10.2017 o godzinie 04∶08 +0200, użytkownik Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn napisał: > Michał Górny schrieb: > > to: > > > > manifest-hashes = SHA512 SHA3_512 > > +1 > > Just wondering about the performance argument on weak systems: > Does Portage absolutely have to check all of the hashes or can it be > configured by the user to check only a subset of them? > Yes, it is required to check all hashes. As said on the other thread, I'm not blocking anyone from adding another option but it's not going tobe on by default. -- Best regards, Michał Górny