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 82C5C1396D9 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB72FE0D47; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:36:55 +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 699EDE0D1F for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:36:54 +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 44E2733BEC7; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1509997008.1382.13.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: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:36:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1508440120.19870.14.camel@gentoo.org> <1509987501.1382.11.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: da6b75f9-f9be-42d1-b320-3eff97371a99 X-Archives-Hash: dfd80e690dc0a757e636290e74dfae64 W dniu pon, 06.11.2017 o godzinie 19∶13 +0000, użytkownik Robin H. Johnson napisał: > +1 overall, just one timeline clarification. > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:58:21PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > T + 7 days > > ---------- > > Set: > > manifest-hashes = BLAKE2B SHA512 > > manifest-required-hashes = SHA512 > > > > New Manifest entries will use the new hashes but Portage will keep the > > old hash set whenever it would need to refetch old distfiles. > > Query: > Do we need to wait for it to be stable before making this change? > Shouldn't old stable versions of Portage continue to verify SHA512 fine? > Mostly I think devs need to be using a new enough Portage that can > generate the BLAKE2B entries, but it shouldn't impact user Portage > versions. > Devs are who I'm worried about. Those 7 days should give them enough time to upgrade their stable Portage. -- Best regards, Michał Górny