Bug 333691 – Thin Manifests for Git based portage tree

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Thilo Bangert (RETIRED) (RETIRED) 2010-08-20 19:55:09 UTC]

Thin Manifests are under active research on gentoo-scm.

Latest thread:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-scm/msg_119616fd405ae91a3f7b49e8acbbeddb.xml

need implementation in portage

[Comment 1 Robin Johnson 2010-08-21 08:11:24 UTC]

drobbins implemented a variant of thin manifests in Funtoo.
Find his implementation and see what can be borrowed.

[Comment 2 Zac Medico 2011-08-22 21:35:05 UTC]

Repositories should have some kind of marker to indicate that they have thin manifests. For example, an entry in metadata/layout.conf could be used for this purpose.

[Comment 3 Zac Medico 2011-09-12 23:06:19 UTC]

We now have support in portage for a "thin-manifests = true" setting in metadata/layout.conf:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=af7933ee4df1d62a6567510dc7e84a0cf13a09ef

[Comment 4 Zac Medico 2011-09-14 06:09:42 UTC]

(In reply to comment #3)
> We now have support in portage for a "thin-manifests = true" setting in
> metadata/layout.conf:
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=af7933ee4df1d62a6567510dc7e84a0cf13a09ef

This is included in portage-2.1.10.16 and 2.2.0_alpha56.

[Comment 5 Zac Medico 2011-09-15 04:31:28 UTC]

In some cases, like if there's only a live ebuild for a given package, there is nothing to put in the thin manifest. This leads to some questions:

1) Is it okay to have no Manifest file if there is nothing to put in it?

2) If it's okay to have no Manifest file, then what about if manifest signing is enabled? Do we just sign an empty file in that case?

[Comment 6 Michał Górny 2011-09-15 07:47:30 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> 2) If it's okay to have no Manifest file, then what about if manifest signing
> is enabled? Do we just sign an empty file in that case?

I think we don't sign thin Manifests at all.

[Comment 7 Zac Medico 2011-09-15 14:51:05 UTC]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > 2) If it's okay to have no Manifest file, then what about if manifest signing
> > is enabled? Do we just sign an empty file in that case?
> 
> I think we don't sign thin Manifests at all.

You can set "sign-manifests = false" in metadata/layout.conf to ensure that:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=9cb089047e10b300100e7bbdc4274ecf8866b0bb

Initially, I had made the "sign-manifests = false" behavior implicitly included with "thin-manifests = true", but robbat2 objected:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/msg_435fd94fc19dbde7e598ce97edb2a85e.xml

[Comment 8 Sebastian Luther (few) 2011-09-20 08:23:55 UTC]

*** Bug 261380 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 9 Zac Medico 2011-10-07 15:08:03 UTC]

Here's a tweak for repoman commit logic when using thin-manifests, related to bug 340475:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=ae260804da9689c69fad3775d8a4be31b34a087d

[Comment 10 Andreas K. Hüttel 2012-01-14 15:42:38 UTC]

I guess this bug can be resolved, at latest when ppc64 as last arch stabilizes portage-2.1.10.41 in bug 394695...