Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP58 - MetaManifest

[Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org>]

You'll find below an email from solar to Robin about MetaManifest. I'm
adding it to this thread (with solar's authorization) as it seems
pertinent.

Denis.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Robin,
>
> I recall you wanted me to mail you what we talked about last nite in
> #gentoo-portage and I'll CC: the council so they have an idea what to
> maybe expect.
>
> So in our talking last night we discussed the fact that if the Manifest
> format has to change why not just get rid of it all together, and save
> some serious in tree space with the new MetaManifest's taking over all
> together. This would include MetaManifest's at the 2-level.
> You said the MetaManifest would need about 4 fields in them to describe
> the distfiles etc. Devs would still push normal Manifest's to the cvs
> tree so DIST can be obtained by the backend infra scripts. But those
> Manifest's could be dropped from the mirroring. if [ -e CVS ] then
> portage would need to use the existing Manifest's
>
> This method would hands down win my vote. As you know I'm not a fan of
> format changes in general as they can make the Gentoo experience suck,
> but if we are going to change formats. Lets do it right.
>
> The only downside I can see in this method is for people like drobbins
> who mirror our tree but overlay right on top of it then provide it back
> out.  In such cases we should provide our backend scripts to the public
> so they can re MetaManifest.
>
> I'm probably forgetting all sorts of details from the chat. But
> hopefully this is enough to remind you, as well as giving the other
> council ppl an idea of what to maybe expect.