From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9BA1384B4 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2D9121C203; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0131.smtp25.com (mail0131.smtp25.com [75.126.84.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C572B21C008 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ccs.covici.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccs.covici.com (8.14.9/8.14.8) with ESMTP id tAG7X0ll028053 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 02:33:00 -0500 From: covici@ccs.covici.com To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: All sorts of digest verification failures In-reply-to: References: <20151112171903.68e1b944@hal9000.localdomain> <5644C238.6040008@gmail.com> <20151115095928.GA1766@acm.fritz.box> <20151115171735.4fd31dc3@digimed.co.uk> <5648E8C3.5090509@gmail.com> <1673.1447619387@ccs.covici.com> <20151115210235.GA8427@anonymous> Comments: In-reply-to Martin Vaeth message dated "Mon, 16 Nov 2015 06:45:07 +0000." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.5; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28051.1447659180.1@ccs.covici.com> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 02:33:00 -0500 Message-ID: <28052.1447659180@ccs.covici.com> X-SpamH-OriginatingIP: 70.109.53.110 X-SpamH-Filter: d-out-001.smtp25.com-tAG7X0Vs015989 X-Archives-Salt: a8181a36-2a56-442f-b447-5946ab7712dc X-Archives-Hash: 35e7b881d17e6db885b33f5a740d8f7c Martin Vaeth wrote: > Simon Thelen wrote: > > I sync from git and none of my Manifests track the ebuilds, so this > > could be a thing. > > No. git has (probably, I didn't check) > thin-manifests = true > in its metadata/layout.conf, but for rsync this should > not be the case for security reasons. I double-checked, > and I have indeed thin-manifests = false there, as it should be. > Nevertheless, the conflict was not reported. I have thinmanifests=true as specified in some news item or post, I think this was a mandatory change some time ago using rsync. They figured the ebuilds sync anyway so no reason for the manifests to have them. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com