On Thursday 24 November 2005 10:07, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:20 +0900 > > Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100 > > > > > > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage: > > > > - The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others > > > > if implemented like with the second mod), if you want to try it > > > > yourself see the attached patch. > > > > Looking through CVS, this was supported in at least > > portage-2.0.51_rc10 right? This implies that the only versions that > > will have problems are 2.0.50-r11 and under? If so, they've already > > got the cascaded profile problem so breaking things a little more > > won't hurt much. ;) > > > > Seriously though, those that can't handle the new format would have > > to do what? Regenerate digests for sandbox and portage and then > > emerge each of them with --oneshot? Am I missing anything else there? > > Nope, not missing anything. Thought I said it, compability isn't a > reason to hold this up anymore, only asking if people want multi-hashes > now at the expense of a bigger tree when Manifest2 comes along.
I'm referring to portage-2.0.50 and below. What exactly needs to be done by those few that are still using it to upgrade to a better portage after it dies on finding SHA1 sums in portage's digest? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
