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 1EoPXs-0002X8-7q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:15:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBJIDfgw022987; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:13:41 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBJI7HMx026368 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:07:18 GMT Received: from [35.9.132.144] (nagoya.dhcp.egr.msu.edu [35.9.132.144]) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBJI7IhZ011923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:07:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43A6F6D6.9060105@egr.msu.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:07:18 -0500 From: Alec Joseph Warner User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] December 15th Meeting Summary References: <200512152247.21770.vapier@gentoo.org> <20051219183716.13f195c4@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20051219183716.13f195c4@sven.genone.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 35176c0c-e751-4348-b0f0-a89fa3ff6d19 X-Archives-Hash: 74bbfef85713fe41a03852366030de15 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:47:21 -0500 > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > >>this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the >>agenda: >> >>- 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 >>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 >>metadata.xml files from the current Manifest schema as digesting >>them serves no real purpose. > > > You're all aware that this would break portage version older than 6 months)? Also while they don't affect the > build process they contain important information and are/will be parsed > by portage, so I'm not that comfortable with dropping also the option > of verifying them permanently. FYI, that version of portage is already broken by the virtuals glep and X11's virtual/stuff so no harm there ;) -Alec Warner (antarus) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list