-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Now that the whole tree has been converted to Manifest2 format we can remove the
old digest files from the tree so that it is pure Manifest2 format [1]. Any
users who still have a version of portage that doesn't support Manifest2 (less
than sys-apps/po
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:08:42PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> In order to trigger removal of the old digests, all that we have to do is add
> a
> file named manifest1_obsolete to the root of the repository. Presence of that
> file causes repoman to automatically remove the old digests upon commit.
Zac Medico wrote:
> (shtuff)
This sounds like something that might require extensive documentation
changes. If so, please review the Portage Handbooks for anything that
will need updating, as well as the Gentoo Upgrading Guide[1]. This
latter document is where we keep the instructions for upgradin
Robin H. Johnson a écrit :
Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile
items two levels up).
If repoman needs to check the existe
On 26-01-2008 17:35:37 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
> that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
> that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile
> items two levels up).
Is i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008.01.27 01:08, Zac Medico wrote:
> Now that the whole tree has been converted to Manifest2 format we can
> remove the old digest files from the tree so that it is pure
> Manifest2 format [1]. Any
> users who still have a version of portage that
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
>> On 26-01-2008 17:35:37 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>> Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
>>> that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
>
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
On 26-01-2008 17:35:37 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile
items
Robin H. Johnson kirjoitti:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
On 26-01-2008 17:35:37 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
> that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
> that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile
> items two
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible.
> You wouldn't be able to block the entire commit, only the contents of
> the files/ directory would get totally blocked.
> If you were committing an ebuild along with a patch, this w
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 17:08 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead and add
> the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts?
1. Add blocking of commit of files/digest-* in CVS pre-commit hook
2. Add manifest1_obsolete to tree
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead and
> >> add
> >> the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts?
> > Let's do it. I look forward to a lot less inodes on my disks.
>
> Let's schedule a da
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible.
> > You wouldn't be able to block the entire commit, only the contents of
> > the files/ directory would get tota
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I do have one question, though. What does an older portage version do
> when it hits a package with a missing digest file?
>
> Let's say I've got portage prior to 2007.0's, so it doesn't support
> Manifest2 only. I want to
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 18:01 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible.
> > > You wouldn't be able to block the entire c
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 18:01 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible.
You wouldn't be able to block t
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead and add
the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts?
Let's do it. I look forward to a lot less inodes on my disks.
Let's schedule
Le dimanche 27 janvier 2008 à 17:44 -0800, Chris Gianelloni a écrit :
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:11 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > >> If there are no objections then I don't so any reason not to go ahead
> > >> and add
> > >> the manifest1_obsolete sometime in the near future. Thoughts?
> > > Let's
Zac Medico a écrit :
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Related to the top level of the tree, can we get a release of repoman
that detects if a checkout is a subset only (eg no top level), for folk
that have subtree checkouts only? (Probably look for skel.*/profile
items two levels up).
I think we should
On Jan 28, 2008 2:44 AM, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thursday/Friday
> should be sufficient for this sort of a change, as it won't affect any
> user who has a version of portage released in the past ~1.5 years.
+1, too.
--
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thursday/Friday
should be sufficient for this sort of a change, as it won't affect any
user who has a version of portage released in the past ~1.5 years.
So, since it seems nobody objected it, time for the announceme
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thursday/Friday
>> should be sufficient for this sort of a change, as it won't affect any
>> user who has a version of portage released in the past ~1
On Jan 31, 2008 12:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thursday/Friday
> >> should be sufficient for this sort of a change, as
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:45 +0100, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 12:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:26AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > >> I think throwing up an announcement today/tomorrow for Thu
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:14:48PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It really is best done in the tree first, so everything is correct for
> the snapshot. We didn't have much issue last time because we push
> "manifest1_obsolete" into the snapshot, so digests are removed, anyway,
> but I'd *really
Il Thursday 31 January 2008 02:00:36 Robin H. Johnson ha scritto:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:14:48PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > It really is best done in the tree first, so everything is correct for
> > the snapshot. We didn't have much issue last time because we push
> > "manifest1_obso
Davide Cendron wrote:
>> Ok, so we're just blocking on the docs guys.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, nobody asked us to fix stuff.
Preferred way would be filing a bug to the docs-team that says "hey,
we're gonna deprecate all digests, could you please fix your crap so
that it doesn't recommend
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:57:01PM +0100, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
> Davide Cendron wrote:
> >> Ok, so we're just blocking on the docs guys.
> Well, to the best of my knowledge, nobody asked us to fix stuff.
...
> Also note that docs team is responsible for files that are under
> http://www.gentoo.org/do
29 matches
Mail list logo
