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 1EoOzK-0003ZT-4u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:39:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBJHd0Xm031306; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:39:00 GMT Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBJHZuM0006348 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:35:56 GMT Received: from [82.83.35.33] (helo=sven.genone.homeip.net) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu4) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML21M-1EoOvT2Uxx-0005Ci; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:35:56 +0100 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:37:16 +0100 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, python@gentoo.org, releng@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] December 15th Meeting Summary Message-ID: <20051219183716.13f195c4@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200512152247.21770.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <200512152247.21770.vapier@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0-rc1 (GTK+ 2.8.8; 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_5HuVLk=lMo5YW02nskASNrA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:7e6c91d1b14dbccceb2f2166522fa0f6 X-Archives-Salt: 7d28e7b1-0808-4e63-8e67-0f33a0b749fe X-Archives-Hash: bb364cee8dedb36258b692caa7e4410e --Sig_5HuVLk=lMo5YW02nskASNrA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:47:21 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the > agenda: >=20 > - Marius: decision on multi-hash for Manifest1 > there was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to > review/decide on this issue since we werent able to locate any > portage devs at the time of the meeting ... Well, it would help if the actual meeting date would be announced and not pushed back without notice ;) > so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the reasons=20 > our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally > sent by Marius [1], then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1). > that is, the portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and > include support for SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1 > should not be included as having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless. Ok, not a problem. > it was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and=20 > metadata.xml files from the current Manifest schema as digesting=20 > them serves no real purpose. You're all aware that this would break