On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:29:31 -0600 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Signing elsewhere isn't mandatory yet. | | Deal with it ;)
In order to deal with it, I'd also have to come up with a solution to distributing keys for Gentoo developers. That's a separate issue which must be addressed separately. A wording change from "may" to "should be" is fine by me, but "must be" is not, at least until we have a real signing system in place. | > | Already pointed out that this won't fly looking forward, it | > | implicitly assumes a single repository. | > | > Again, we can deal with that if Portage ever gets multiple repo | > support. Until it does, I'm not trying to guess how it's going to | > end up being implemented. | | *cough* PORTDIR_OVERLAY *cough* | | Already have multiple repo support. Assumed you meant standalone, in | which case I still think you're dodging support that must be there. Overlays override on conflicts, they don't run in parallel. | Changing it after the fact because it wasn't design with an extra bit | of forward thinking isn't something I'm incredibly game for. Yes | it's extra work for you, but you're proposing the change ;) | | You're going for forward compatibility... this is just that. I'm going for not making any design decisions which will preclude reasonable future changes. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Anti-XML, anti-newbie conspiracy) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp9b6dSx8JbE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
