blob: a38d54ed8f2b6bcaa530f2816bfb990e4d0d0d75 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
|
\summary{2005}{12}{15}
\agendaitem{Decision on multi-hash for Manifest1}
\index{multi-hash}\index{Manifest}\index{hash!SHA256}\index{hash!SHA1}
\index{hash!RMD160}\index{hash!MD5}\index{ChangeLog}\index{metadata.xml}
Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/33434
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 ... 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, 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. further more, we hope this is just a
hold over until Manifest2 is ironed out/approved/implemented/deployed. 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.
\agendaitem{Portage signing}
\index{portage signing}
Shortly after our November meeting, a nice summary was posted by Robin
Johnson that covered signing issues from top to bottom. as such, it was felt
that trying to throw together a GLEP would not be beneficial. instead we
will be adding a constant agenda item to future council meetings as to the
status of portage signing issues to keep the project from slipping into
obscurity again.
|
GitWeb
