Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Florian Schmaus <flow@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:30:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM by "Michał Górny"
1 On 14/06/2022 11.37, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 10:29 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
3 >> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:44 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
4 >>> Judging from the gentoo-dev@ mailing list discussion [1] about EGO_SUM,
5 >>> where some voices where in agreement that EGO_SUM has its raison d'être,
6 >>> while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM,
7 >>> I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM.
8 >>>
9 >>> 1:
10 >>>
11 >>
12 >> "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired
13 >> and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees".
14 >
15 > First of all, I am sorry for my tone.
17 No worries and no offense taken. I can easily see how this could be
18 considered rehashing a old discussion, but the truth is simply that the
19 deprecation of EGO_SUM cough me by surprise.
22 > I have been thinking about it and I was wrong to oppose this change.
23 > I have been conflating two problem: EGO_SUM and Manifest sizes.
24 > However, while EGO_SUM might be an important factor contributing to
25 > the latter, I think we shouldn't single it out and instead focus
26 > on addressing the actual problem.
28 Exactly my line of though. Especially since it is not unlikely that we
29 will run into this problem with other programming language ecosystems
30 too (where the "dependency tarball" solution may not be easily viable).
33 > That said, I believe it's within maintainer's right to decide what API
34 > to deprecate and what API to support. So I'd suggest getting William's
35 > approval for this rather than changing the supported API of that eclass
36 > via drive-by commits.
38 That was never my intention, hence the subject starts with "Proposal to"
39 and I explicitly but William in CC. I believed that one week after the
40 discussion around my initial gentoo-dev@ post, which gave me the
41 impression that un-deprecating EGO_SUM has some supporters and no
42 opposer, it was time to post a concrete proposal in form of a suggested
43 code change.
45 Looking forward to William's take on this. :)
47 - Flow


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM "Holger Hoffstätte" <holger@××××××××××××××××××.com>