|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>|
|Package list:||Runtime testing required:||---|
Description charles17 2016-01-25 10:31:25 UTC
With reference to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507774#c9 please restore the old tar based way of unpacking the portage tree and explain how to verify it's keys. emerge-webrsync as given in https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Parts/Installation/Base#Installing_a_Portage_snapshot cannot get anything verified at this point.
Comment 1 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto 2016-01-29 00:53:26 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/
Comment 2 charles17 2016-01-29 07:31:07 UTC
(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.
Comment 3 nm (RETIRED) 2016-01-30 01:32:01 UTC
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.