Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:36:07AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-09-16 at 17:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:50:12AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > On 9/16/19 11:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > > For packages that I maintain, I'd prefer to continue using EGO_VENDOR to
> > > > > even with packages using go.mod. I hope that this go-module.class will
> > > > > not preclude this sort of usage. For example, the latest go-tools ebuild
> > > > > uses EGO_VENDOR together with GOFLAGS="-mod=vendor":
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=8cc6d401139526e2f9a6dbadbd31f0ff2387705f
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate on why you want to keep EGO_VENDOR?
> > > >
> > > > The "go mod vendor" command above downloads all the correct versions
> > > > of the dependencies and puts them in the vendor directory, so I'm not
> > > > sure why you would need the EGO_VENDOR variable.
> > >
> > > EGO_VENDOR eliminates to need to generate and host monolithic tarballs
> > > containing vendored dependencies. It's more space-efficient in the sense
> > > that each vendored dependency is stored in a separate tarball, so
> > > multiple ebuilds can share the same tarball if the version of a
> > > particular vendored dependency has not changed.
> >
> > I see what you are saying, but I haven't yet found a way to generate
> > these separate tarballs that I'm comfortable with. Also, thinking about
> > this, there will be many more tarballs on our mirrors if we store one
> > dependency in each tarball than if we generate vendor tarballs that
> > contain all dependencies for a package.
> >
> > I would consider this an enhancement to the eclass if you  still feel
> > that we need it, but let me get the eclass into the tree first then we
> > can work on that.
> >
>
> That sounds like a bad idea.  If there are any potential enhancements
> that can happen, I'd rather see them happen before there's a bunch of
> ebuilds using the eclass in the wild, and potentially limiting possible
> changes.

Like I just said on IRC, it would have been better if you responded in
terms of discussing the enhancement itself.

The main blocker for me is that EGO_VENDOR is basically the same
information as go.mod, but it isn't quite the same format.
You can get close with "go list -m all", but EGO_VENDOR doesn't
automatically handle imports that start with things like golang.org/x or
gopkg.in; you have to manually fix those, and you would have to do that
every time. That seems to be a lot of work for little gain.

William