this months meeting wasnt too eventful, kind of quiet ... on the agenda: - Marius: decision on multi-hash for Manifest1 there was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to review/decide on this issue since we werent able to locate any portage devs at the time of the meeting ... so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the reasons our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally sent by Marius [1], then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1). that is, the portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and include support for SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1 should not be included as having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless. further more, we hope this is just a hold over until Manifest2 is ironed out/approved/implemented/deployed. it was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and metadata.xml files from the current Manifest schema as digesting them serves no real purpose. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/33434
- Council: portage signing shortly after our November meeting, a nice summary was posted by Robin Johnson that covered signing issues from top to bottom. as such, it was felt that trying to throw together a GLEP would not be beneficial. instead we will be adding a constant agenda item to future council meetings as to the status of portage signing issues to keep the project from slipping into obscurity again. full meeting log: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20051215.txt -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
