On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:48:44 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
> > between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported
> > by a package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just
> > do a minor stable release strai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
>> It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
>> between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a
>> package manager. And even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
>> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
>> to regenerate the metadata in
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
> to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI
> has changed (example given 2 emails
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
reliable indicator of the mech
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
> >> manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
> >> reliable indicator of the mechanism which should be used to
> >> validate the integrity of the cache ent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
>> should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
>> indicator of the mechanism
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
> should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
> indicator of the mechanism which should be used to validate the
> integrity of the cache entry.
Validat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> I'd recommend to prefix the digest with a "{TYPE}" (like for hashed
>> passwords) to be able to change the digest algorithm as needed
>> (especially in regards to the current SHA successor competition).
>> T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:24AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
> Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:24AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Brian Harring wrote:
> >>> Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format could stand to die.
> >>> The repository format is an ever growing m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>> Frankly, forget compatibility- the current format could stand to die.
>>> The repository format is an ever growing mess- leave it as is and
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55:51PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
> >> the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
> >> funto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>> All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
>> the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
>> funtoo project is the only o
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> So... flame away.
When I first read Zac's original email, I was sure that a change was
required, and I'm sure now as well (I personally find the cache stuff
pretty clunky). However, I think that a time has come for more
*radical* change to
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:55:41AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> All that I can say right now is that I recall questions about it in
> the past from overlay maintainers (I don't have a list) and the
> funtoo project is the only one which I can name offhand.
>
> However, the ability to distribute cach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to
> keep track of and store junk under version co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
>> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This
>> creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest forma
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This
> creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing distribution of metadata
> cache via version control systems is more flexibl
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >> For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
> >> hexadecimal digits of the SH
Petteri Räty a écrit :
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
It would probably be useful to provide a central rsync infra for
overlays where overlay maintainers could subscribe their overlays to
and the machine would pull in their VCS and generate the me
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:15:55 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> > How much do you trust overlay maintainers?
>
> It shouldn't be that hard to sandbox the overlays for cache
> generation.
Uh. Really? I'd be interested to see how you plan to pull that one off.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descrip
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> It would probably be useful to provide a central rsync infra for
>> overlays where overlay maintainers could subscribe their overlays to
>> and the machine would pull in their VCS and generate the metadata for
>>
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:30:58 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> It would probably be useful to provide a central rsync infra for
> overlays where overlay maintainers could subscribe their overlays to
> and the machine would pull in their VCS and generate the metadata for
> them.
How much do you trust ov
Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800
>> Zac Medico wrote:
Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to
keep track of and store junk under version control.
>>> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Lik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to
>>> keep track of and store junk under version control.
>> I think you're making it out to be worse
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to
> > keep track of and store junk under version control.
>
> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I
> said, I think we have a justifiable exceptio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> No, it's just encouraging bad development practices.
>> It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment.
>
> Not storing generated content under revision cont
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > No, it's just encouraging bad development practices.
>
> It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment.
Not storing generated content under revision control is hardly an
arbitrary judgement. It's a well accepted software developm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a
>>> perfect example of doing it wrong...
>> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a
> > perfect example of doing it wrong...
>
> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to
> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This
> crea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:23:18 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> Well, usually you don't keep intermediate or generated files in a
>>> VCS, so why the metadata?
>> People who distribute overlays commonly ask if it's possible to
>> d
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:23:18 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > Well, usually you don't keep intermediate or generated files in a
> > VCS, so why the metadata?
>
> People who distribute overlays commonly ask if it's possible to
> distribute metadata cache with the overlay. Using a format that
> doesn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 12:36 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>> But if your target is to reduce the size of the metadata cache, why
>>> store the ha
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 12:36 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> >>> Am S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
-BEGIN PGP SIGN
Am Sonntag, den 08.02.2009, 00:59 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> >>> Am M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
For the digest forma
Am Samstag, den 07.02.2009, 15:23 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >> For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
> >> hexadecimal digits of the SH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
>> For the digest format, I suggest that we use the leftmost 10
>> hexadecimal digits of the SHA-1 digest. The rationale for limiting
>> it to 10 digits (out of 40) is t
Am Montag, den 02.02.2009, 12:34 -0800 schrieb Zac Medico:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to add a new metadata cache value called DIGESTS which will
> contain a space separated list of digests which can be
> used to validate the metadata cache. Like INHERI
42 matches
Mail list logo
