Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:27:47
Message-Id: YqyrektbVasDO7y4@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM by Ulrich Mueller
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature