As of Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at approximately 10:00 UTC, the manifest
hashes used on the gentoo-x86 tree will change to "SHA256 SHA512
WHIRLPOOL". To facilitate this change, developers MUST be using at
least portage-2.1.10.49 (or portage-2.2_alpha89), or, if your
dev-lang/python is built with USE="-ssl", portage-2.1.10.51 (or
portage-2.2_alpha95) or later is required.

For users, if they are on a older portage, it will gracefully
downgrade. For developers, however, not using a supported version will
cause tree inconsistencies. Developers will also need to make sure
they cvs up metadata/layout.conf (or cvs up the entire tree) after
this change occurs before making any commits.

Thanks

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jeff Horelick <jdhore@gentoo.org> wrote:
> As of Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at approximately 10:00 UTC, the manifest
> hashes used on the gentoo-x86 tree will change to "SHA256 SHA512
> WHIRLPOOL". To facilitate this change, developers MUST be using at
> least portage-2.1.10.49 (or portage-2.2_alpha89), or, if your
> dev-lang/python is built with USE="-ssl", portage-2.1.10.51 (or
> portage-2.2_alpha95) or later is required.
>
> For users, if they are on a older portage, it will gracefully
> downgrade. For developers, however, not using a supported version will
> cause tree inconsistencies. Developers will also need to make sure
> they cvs up metadata/layout.conf (or cvs up the entire tree) after
> this change occurs before making any commits.
>
> Thanks
>

Why don't we just reject manifests with old hashes?

-A

On 07/02/2012 03:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jeff Horelick <jdhore@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> As of Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at approximately 10:00 UTC, the manifest
>> hashes used on the gentoo-x86 tree will change to "SHA256 SHA512
>> WHIRLPOOL". To facilitate this change, developers MUST be using at
>> least portage-2.1.10.49 (or portage-2.2_alpha89), or, if your
>> dev-lang/python is built with USE="-ssl", portage-2.1.10.51 (or
>> portage-2.2_alpha95) or later is required.
>>
>> For users, if they are on a older portage, it will gracefully
>> downgrade. For developers, however, not using a supported version will
>> cause tree inconsistencies. Developers will also need to make sure
>> they cvs up metadata/layout.conf (or cvs up the entire tree) after
>> this change occurs before making any commits.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> Why don't we just reject manifests with old hashes?

If we do that then we should only do it for *new* distfiles, because it
will take some time for the new hashes to be generated for all of the
existing files. By allowing the digests to be updated gradually, it's
friendlier to committers since they aren't suddenly forced to download a
bunch of distfiles just to generate the new digests.
--
Thanks,
Zac

The change has been made.

Please remember to cvs up metadata/layout.conf and update portage (if
necessary) before committing.

Thanks