Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] go-module.eclass: deprecate EGO_SUM and call ego instead of go
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 01:59:03
Message-Id: YiFyXatG2ZnndYll@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] go-module.eclass: deprecate EGO_SUM and call ego instead of go by Sam James
1 On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:01:42AM +0000, Sam James wrote:
2 >
3 >
4 > > On 4 Mar 2022, at 00:00, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
5 > >
6 > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:32:14PM +0500, Anna Vyalkova wrote:
7 > >> On 2022-03-01 15:55, William Hubbs wrote:
8 > >>> I am willing to flag EGO_SUM as deprecated if a variable can be flagged
9 > >>> as deprecated; that is what I'm looking up now.
10 > >>
11 > >> EGO_SUM is often the only choice for overlays, so consider not
12 > >> deprecating it.
13 > >
14 > > EGO_SUM does not work for large SRC_URI; that is the reason it is
15 > > being deprecated.
16 > >
17 > > Also, my understanding is we do not normally keep code around
18 > > if that code's only purpose is to support overlays.
19 >
20 > I don't think there's a need to rip it out given we know it can be quite
21 > useful there though, right?
22 >
23 > It's not actively harming anything to just keep the small amount of code there.
24
25 Sure, it may not be harmful to keep it there, but using it in the main
26 tree isn't going to be a thing.
27
28 > I think it's quite a nice convenience option (in fact, for ::gentoo too), where
29 > EGO_SUM isn't huge. But I admit this isn't that common.
30
31 Another thing to consider is that the bulk of the code in the eclass is
32 for handling EGO_SUM, so if I can remove it, ultimately, it will mean less code to maintain.
33
34 I will post a separate patch which I will not merge at this point to
35 show what I'm talking about.
36
37 Thanks,
38
39 William

Attachments

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