Summary: | Restore the old tar based way of unpacking the portage tree and explain how to verify it's keys | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [OLD] Docs on www.gentoo.org | Reporter: | charles17 |
Component: | Installation Handbook | Assignee: | Docs Team <docs-team> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Parts/Installation/Base#Installing_a_Portage_snapshot | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507774 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
charles17
2016-01-25 10:31:25 UTC
There's nothing preventing anyone from running gpg to verify a portage snapshot, so I don't understand what's the complaint here. Also, it's possible to download a distfile through https - https://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots/ (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #1) > There's nothing preventing anyone from running gpg to verify a portage > snapshot, so I don't understand what's the complaint here. > Also, it's possible to download a distfile through https - > https://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots/ The complaint is about handbook having switched to recommending emerge-webrsync instead. please don't file bugs for pages in the wiki. use the appropriate "discussion" tab on that wiki page if you have suggestions. there's a reason why we switched from the old manual unpack process to the automated webrsync process. referencing an old invalid bug isn't a reason to switch back. |