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 1EoQkr-00032Y-OI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:33:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBJJVjnM010186; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:31:45 GMT Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBJJSUCt011204 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:28:30 GMT Received: from [82.83.35.33] (helo=sven.genone.homeip.net) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu8) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML2ov-1EoQgQ1FZR-0002HZ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:28:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:29:43 +0100 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] December 15th Meeting Summary Message-ID: <20051219202943.6c8693f9@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <1135017904.11584.70.camel@onyx> References: <200512152247.21770.vapier@gentoo.org> <20051219183716.13f195c4@sven.genone.homeip.net> <1135017904.11584.70.camel@onyx> 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_dvWQMeGCsu32BPUCEm27IZN; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:7e6c91d1b14dbccceb2f2166522fa0f6 X-Archives-Salt: 41e05c70-7a51-4f55-979f-263b7bd8c950 X-Archives-Hash: 17237f07f079fccedc20cf59cb3a0a0d --Sig_dvWQMeGCsu32BPUCEm27IZN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500 solar wrote: > If you do that please set it as a blocker for the .54 release.=20 > Reintroducing ChangeLog/metadata.xml to Manifests would be a undesired > regression. Nothing in the portage as of <=3D.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 >=20 > Making the argument for maybe portage in the future will use them is=20 > not valid as they are currently omited and we/I have been told before > by the portage team (ferringb & jstubbs iirc??) that portage itself > wont be doing any .xml parsing in it's core. IE So that means not > today nor tomorrow will anything need to depend on those files in > order to build. 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. 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_dvWQMeGCsu32BPUCEm27IZN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDpwozWzrL1pM7SNcRAuSqAJ4sv+KqTjG2Ysgi2cDyu0/EWVMQcQCggJ79 jY0DKdgzdlnHEJPAERgLINE= =AcgW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_dvWQMeGCsu32BPUCEm27IZN-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list