Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Florian Schmaus <flow@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:31:09
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM by "Michał Górny"
1 On 13/06/2022 10.29, 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:
9 >>
10 >
11 > "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired
12 > and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees".
14 I understand this comment so that there was already a discussion about
15 deprecating and removing EGO_SUM. I usually try to follow what's going
16 on Gentoo and I remember the discussion about introducing dependency
17 tarballs. But I apparently have missed the part where EGO_SUM was slated
18 for removal. And it appears I am not the only one, at least Ionen also
19 wrote "Missed bits and pieces but was never quite sure why this went
20 toward full deprecation, just discouraged may have been fair enough, …".
22 In any case, I am sorry for bringing this discussion up again. But since
23 I started rehashing this, no arguments why EGO_SUM should be removed
24 have been provided. And so far, I failed to find the old discussions
25 where I'd hope to find some rationale behind the deprecation of EGO_SUM. :/
27 - Flow


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>