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 4.50) id 1EfEXf-00069T-Ko for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:41:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAOAei9f016775; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:40:44 GMT Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAOAcw7Q000905 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:38:58 GMT Received: from [82.82.183.7] (helo=sven.genone.homeip.net) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwpI-1EfEVF2rL4-0000mN; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:38:57 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:38:44 +0100 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status Message-ID: <20051124113844.7d358592@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <43855EBE.2000507@gentoo.org> References: <20051124010432.33eecead@sven.genone.homeip.net> <43855EBE.2000507@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.100 (GTK+ 2.8.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_1476oVVa.7Nq+DWJ.SVfcCp; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:7e6c91d1b14dbccceb2f2166522fa0f6 X-Archives-Salt: 706c59ff-02f9-4f3a-bca4-a99cb93f1403 X-Archives-Hash: ba6467ff003efb5c4ccac84a77e60d92 --Sig_1476oVVa.7Nq+DWJ.SVfcCp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:33:34 +0100 Marc Hildebrand wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > [..] > > So much for background information, now to the actual question: > > Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests > > and Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger > > portage tree (in the long term the format will be phased out > > hopefully) or rather wait for Manifest2 support (which will > > definitely include multi hash support)? >=20 > I'd rather wait for Manifest2 support. > What is the ETA for the GLEP and the implementation after i? GLEP I still have to start writing (mostly a reformatting of a mail I sent a long time ago), there is already a prototype implementation (doesn't cover everything yet but works generally), target is for when current trunk will be released (still have to settle on a version for it), which should hopefully be after 2.0.54 gets out (which should be in the next few weeks). At a guess I'd say 4 months till stable (but really, that's just a guess, see the 2.1 fiasko). Marius --=20 Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. --Sig_1476oVVa.7Nq+DWJ.SVfcCp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhZg3WzrL1pM7SNcRAihNAJ9415rqPSOpimSuFy6brEGT0R593gCfYVkR gDIU3vouTKDkfSFpgBossmg= =r/NR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_1476oVVa.7Nq+DWJ.SVfcCp-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list