On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:38:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 00:03 -0700, Duncan wrote: > > Remember, portage already has a decent amount of signed content > > verification builtin, and is getting more. Just because it's not > > currently used, as the debate on strength and keyring handling hasn't been > > settled, doesn't mean the capacity doesn't exist. > > One other advantage with this is we will be starting from a known > portage version. This allows us to not have to worry about backwards > compatibility.
Reliant on portage- we're sitting on forward/backward compatibility handling for ebuilds (EAPI), few months before we cut over and require people to be running an EAPI capable portage- that said, we don't have any versionning yet for profiles. Proposals welcome for that one, since it's required (recall the 2.0.50 bug for cascaded profiles, anyone? ;). ~harring
pgp29kK5uHwCl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
