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 <so...@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.
