| 1 |
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 10:29 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:44 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Judging from the gentoo-dev@ mailing list discussion [1] about EGO_SUM, |
| 4 |
> > where some voices where in agreement that EGO_SUM has its raison d'être, |
| 5 |
> > while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM, |
| 6 |
> > I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired |
| 12 |
> and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
First of all, I am sorry for my tone. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I have been thinking about it and I was wrong to oppose this change. |
| 17 |
I have been conflating two problem: EGO_SUM and Manifest sizes. |
| 18 |
However, while EGO_SUM might be an important factor contributing to |
| 19 |
the latter, I think we shouldn't single it out and instead focus |
| 20 |
on addressing the actual problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That said, I believe it's within maintainer's right to decide what API |
| 23 |
to deprecate and what API to support. So I'd suggest getting William's |
| 24 |
approval for this rather than changing the supported API of that eclass |
| 25 |
via drive-by commits. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives