1 |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26:43PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
3 |
> |
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'ĂȘtre, |
6 |
> >>>> while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM, |
7 |
> >>>> I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. |
8 |
> >>>> |
9 |
> >>>> 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa |
10 |
> |
11 |
> >> Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > What is 'this' here? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Undeprecating EGO_SUM. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the |
18 |
> > go-module eclass. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> > Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency |
21 |
> > tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to |
22 |
> > dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo. |
23 |
|
24 |
Like I said on my earlier reply, there have been packages that break |
25 |
using EGO_SUM. Also, Robin's proposal will not be happening, if it does, |
26 |
for some time since it will require an eapi bump and doesn't have a |
27 |
working implementation. |
28 |
|
29 |
The most pressing concern about EGO_SUM is that it can make portage |
30 |
crash because of the size of SRC_URI, so it definitely should not be |
31 |
preferred over dependency tarballs. |
32 |
|
33 |
If you want to chat more about this on the list we can, but for now, |
34 |
let's not undeprecate EGO_SUM in the eclass. |
35 |
|
36 |
William |