Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-02 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2011-05-02 02:16:49 Markos Chandras napisał(a): > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote: > > > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's > > > still a lot of signing with a single key

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 01-05-2011 19:43:48 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > My personal feeling is that we should keep the changelogs as-is, and > include removals, until we're on git. Then we should re-evaluate. git doesn't magically solve all the problems! -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level

[gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 19:43:48 -0400 as excerpted: > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring > wrote: >> Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form, >> crack all signing keys and you've got the tree. > > Well, more like get any one of the keys and y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Markos Chandras
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote: > > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's > > still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards > > of a loss of int

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Markos Chandras
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:43:48PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > > Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form, > > crack all signing keys and you've got the tree. > > My personal feeling is that we should keep the change

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form, > crack all signing keys and you've got the tree. Well, more like get any one of the keys and you get the tree, since portage only validates that a trusted key signed a packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote: > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's > still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards > of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree > content. It'd

[gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Duncan
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:49:06 +0100 as excerpted: > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: >> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog >>> and on the comm

[gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Duncan
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 22:08:31 +0100 as excerpted: > Having the servers do that, will also allow us to provide cut down > Changelogs ( lets say keep that last 10 entries ) so we can provide a > more minimal portage tree, size wise. What about cutting it to the largest whole n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 01-05-2011 14:55:24 +, Duncan wrote: > Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted: > > > Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename > > ChangeLog.gen > > Had to laugh at that one. =:^) Apologies, the .gen extension apparently made the MIME matc

[gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-05-01 Thread Duncan
Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted: > Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename > ChangeLog.gen Had to laugh at that one. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-04-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'm fine with shipping a trimmed down versions to users, but I think the > full version must be easy to access. If the changelogs were accessible via a predicable URL then a simple command-line tool or portage option might display them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-04-30 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 4/30/11 3:05 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs... > Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the > complete ChangeLogs (as they are no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-04-30 Thread Panagiotis Christopoulos
On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs... Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the complete ChangeLogs (as they are now) somewhere (but not in the main tree). Sometimes, full hi

[gentoo-dev] Re: Devmanual text on ChangeLogs

2011-04-30 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno sab, 30/04/2011 alle 11.07 +0200, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: > > I won't clutter ChangeLogs with useless entries for whitespace changes > or spelling fixes in comments, for example. They already account for a > considerable (too large?) percentage of the portage tree [1], and we > should