[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

All,

now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from
go-module.eclass.

This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.

This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.

Thoughts?

William Hubbs (1):
  eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support

 eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++--------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support

[William Hubbs]

Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
---
 eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++--------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass
index 17d37494f15..7b66c3e2b1e 100644
--- a/eclass/go-module.eclass
+++ b/eclass/go-module.eclass
@@ -120,29 +120,6 @@ EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_unpack pkg_postinst
 # This decision  does NOT weaken Go module security, as Go will verify the
 # go.sum copy of the Hash1 values during building of the package.
 
-# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: EGO_VENDOR
-# @DESCRIPTION:
-# This variable is deprecated and should no longer be used. Please
-# convert your ebuilds to use EGO_SUM.
-
-# @FUNCTION: go-module_vendor_uris
-# @DESCRIPTION:
-# This function is deprecated.
-go-module_vendor_uris() {
-	local hash import line repo x
-	for line in "${EGO_VENDOR[@]}"; do
-		read -r import hash repo x <<< "${line}"
-		if [[ -n ${x} ]]; then
-			eerror "Trailing information in EGO_VENDOR in ${P}.ebuild"
-			eerror "${line}"
-			eerror "Trailing information is: \"${x}\""
-			die "Invalid EGO_VENDOR format"
-		fi
-		: "${repo:=${import}}"
-		echo "https://${repo}/archive/${hash}.tar.gz -> ${repo//\//-}-${hash}.tar.gz"
-	done
-}
-
 # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: _GOMODULE_GOPROXY_BASEURI
 # @DESCRIPTION:
 # Golang module proxy service to fetch module files from. Note that the module
@@ -261,17 +238,16 @@ go-module_set_globals() {
 
 # @FUNCTION: go-module_src_unpack
 # @DESCRIPTION:
-# - If EGO_VENDOR is set, use the deprecated function to unpack the base
-#   tarballs and the tarballs indicated in EGO_VENDOR to the correct
-#   locations.
-# - Otherwise, if EGO_SUM is set, unpack the base tarball(s) and set up the
+# If EGO_SUM is set, unpack the base tarball(s) and set up the
 #   local go proxy.
+# - Otherwise, if EGO_VENDOR is set, bail out.
 # - Otherwise do a normal unpack.
 go-module_src_unpack() {
-	if [[ "${#EGO_VENDOR[@]}" -gt 0 ]]; then
-		_go-module_src_unpack_vendor
-	elif [[ "${#EGO_SUM[@]}" -gt 0 ]]; then
+	if [[ "${#EGO_SUM[@]}" -gt 0 ]]; then
 		_go-module_src_unpack_gosum
+	elif [[ "${#EGO_VENDOR[@]}" -gt 0 ]]; then
+		eerror "${EBUILD} is using EGO_VENDOR which is no longer supported"
+		die "Please update this ebuild"
 	else
 		default
 	fi
@@ -350,51 +326,6 @@ _go-module_gosum_synthesize_files() {
 	fi
 }
 
-# @FUNCTION: _go-module_src_unpack_vendor
-# @DESCRIPTION:
-# Extract all archives in ${a} which are not nentioned in ${EGO_VENDOR}
-# to their usual locations then extract all archives mentioned in
-# ${EGO_VENDOR} to ${S}/vendor.
-_go-module_src_unpack_vendor() {
-	# shellcheck disable=SC2120
-	debug-print-function "${FUNCNAME}" "$@"
-	local f hash import line repo tarball vendor_tarballs x
-	vendor_tarballs=()
-	for line in "${EGO_VENDOR[@]}"; do
-		read -r import hash repo x <<< "${line}"
-		if [[ -n ${x} ]]; then
-			eerror "Trailing information in EGO_VENDOR in ${P}.ebuild"
-			eerror "${line}"
-			die "Invalid EGO_VENDOR format"
-		fi
-		: "${repo:=${import}}"
-		vendor_tarballs+=("${repo//\//-}-${hash}.tar.gz")
-	done
-	for f in ${A}; do
-		[[ -n ${vendor_tarballs[*]} ]] && has "${f}" "${vendor_tarballs[@]}" &&
-			continue
-		unpack "${f}"
-	done
-
-	[[ -z ${vendor_tarballs[*]} ]] && return
-	for line in "${EGO_VENDOR[@]}"; do
-		read -r import hash repo _ <<< "${line}"
-		: "${repo:=${import}}"
-		tarball=${repo//\//-}-${hash}.tar.gz
-		ebegin "Vendoring ${import} ${tarball}"
-		rm -fr "${S}/vendor/${import}" || die
-		mkdir -p "${S}/vendor/${import}" || die
-		tar -C "${S}/vendor/${import}" -x --strip-components 1 \
-			-f "${DISTDIR}/${tarball}" || die
-		eend
-	done
-	# replace GOFLAGS if EGO_VENDOR is being used
-	[[ ${#EGO_VENDOR[@]} -gt 0 ]] &&
-		GOFLAGS="-v -x -mod=vendor"
-	eqawarn "${P}.ebuild: EGO_VENDOR will be removed in the future."
-	eqawarn "Please request that the author migrate to EGO_SUM."
-}
-
 # @FUNCTION: _go-module_src_unpack_verify_gosum
 # @DESCRIPTION:
 # Validate the Go modules declared by EGO_SUM are sufficient to cover building
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from
> go-module.eclass.
>
> This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
>
> This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
>
> Thoughts?

It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you
should do the following:

1. Search for affected packages.
2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports.
3. Give them a some time to convert their packages.
4. Mask any packages that do not get updated.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[David Seifert]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 09:51 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR
> > support from
> > go-module.eclass.
> > 
> > This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> > warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
> > 
> > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if
> > they
> > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you
> should do the following:
> 
> 1. Search for affected packages.
> 2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports.
> 3. Give them a some time to convert their packages.
> 4. Mask any packages that do not get updated.
> 

Wow, and python changing one line in its implementation details is
breaking the world, whereas there's still a ton of users of EGO_VENDOR
in the tree?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 06:13:19PM +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 09:51 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > All,
> > > 
> > > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR
> > > support from
> > > go-module.eclass.
> > > 
> > > This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> > > warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
> > > 
> > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if
> > > they
> > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you
> > should do the following:
> > 
> > 1. Search for affected packages.
> > 2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports.
> > 3. Give them a some time to convert their packages.
> > 4. Mask any packages that do not get updated.
> > 
> 
> Wow, and python changing one line in its implementation details is
> breaking the world, whereas there's still a ton of users of EGO_VENDOR
> in the tree?

I'm looking at a specific combination at this point. The ebuilds I'm
looking at inherit go-module *and* use EGO_VENDOR. Most of these have
already been fixed because I have permission from the maintainers to
work on them or I am the maintainer.

The hard part is going to be the work of migrating ebuilds that inherit
golang-* and use EGO_VENDOR over to go-module. That will take work with
upstreams in some cases to make it happen.

William


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 342 bytes --]

> This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.

You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. 



-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1763 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from
> > go-module.eclass.
> >
> > This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> > warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
> >
> > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you
> should do the following:
 
I will respond to your points below, but first, I take offense to your
accusation of me being lazy especially since it seems pretty obvious you
didn't attempt to research my work before you said it.

> 1. Search for affected packages.

Done.

> 2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports.

Already done. If you look at the packages I have been doing this conversion for
so far, you would see that most of them are maintained by myself, zac or
not maintained at all.

> 3. Give them a some time to convert their packages.

No one has had issues with me doing the work myself, so that is what has
been happening. Also, keep in mind that there was a public announcement
made on this list about migrating go packages to the go-module eclass,
and no one spoke out then against it.

> 4. Mask any packages that do not get updated.

There's only one I have masked so far and that was per the maintainer. I
did post the lastrites but it looks like I need to forward it to -dev or
re-post it, I will take a look again after I respond to this message.

William


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 340 bytes --]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> 
> You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. 

Sure, and I'm working on migrating them.

William

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:00 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> >
> > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree.
>
> Sure, and I'm working on migrating them.

I think all the replies to this thread could have been avoided by just
saying that in your initial email. :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Samuel Bernardo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 773 bytes --]

Hi William,

How about overlays using the eclass, will this changes only apply to EAPI 8?

Thanks,

Samuel

On 5/10/20 10:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from
> go-module.eclass.
>
> This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
>
> This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> William Hubbs (1):
>   eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support
>
>  eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++--------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:58 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR support from
> > > go-module.eclass.
> > >
> > > This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa
> > > warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
> > >
> > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you
> > should do the following:
>
> I will respond to your points below, but first, I take offense to your
> accusation of me being lazy especially since it seems pretty obvious you
> didn't attempt to research my work before you said it.

The phrasing of your original email, combined with a question you
asked in IRC lead me to the wrong conclusion. Sorry about that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:47:23PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:00 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> > > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they
> > > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass.
> > >
> > > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree.
> >
> > Sure, and I'm working on migrating them.
> 
> I think all the replies to this thread could have been avoided by just
> saying that in your initial email. :)

I didn't have a problem with what dilfridge said or even with the list
of points floppym came up with. My issue was more with the tone of
floppym's reply, and that has been resolved. :-)

William


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:41:45AM +0100, Samuel Bernardo wrote:
> Hi William,
> 
> How about overlays using the eclass, will this changes only apply to EAPI 8?
 
 Hi Samuel,

 this change will apply to all users of the eclass.

 Overlays are not considered blockers for in-tree eclass work.

Also, keepin mind that there was a qa warning in place for this issue
for 3 months, so overlay owners should have been able to see that and
migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.

 That being said, if any overlay owner would like my assistance with
 migrating their ebuilds, I have no problem with showing them how.

 Thanks,

 William

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Samuel Bernardo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 990 bytes --]

Hi William,

On 5/12/20 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>  Hi Samuel,
>
>  this change will apply to all users of the eclass.
>
>  Overlays are not considered blockers for in-tree eclass work.
>
> Also, keepin mind that there was a qa warning in place for this issue
> for 3 months, so overlay owners should have been able to see that and
> migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM.
Yes, I confirm that I'm aware of that. Thank you for your good work!
>  That being said, if any overlay owner would like my assistance with
>  migrating their ebuilds, I have no problem with showing them how.

No problem from my side, I have already do that.

My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have
enabled.

Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to
remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays?

This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs.

>  Thanks,
>
>  William

Thanks,

Samuel




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Joonas Niilola]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]


On 5/12/20 8:36 PM, Samuel Bernardo wrote:
>
> My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have
> enabled.
>
> Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to
> remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays?
>
> This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs.
>
Nothing stops you from doing that, and reporting any issues you find to
overlay maintainers. This is probably doable with a single grep. We
_cannot_ cater all the overlays. There has been enough time to react.

-- juippis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 642 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[Samuel Bernardo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

Hi,

On 5/12/20 6:40 PM, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 5/12/20 8:36 PM, Samuel Bernardo wrote:
>> My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have
>> enabled.
>>
>> Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to
>> remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays?
>>
>> This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs.
>>
> Nothing stops you from doing that, and reporting any issues you find to
> overlay maintainers. This is probably doable with a single grep. We
> _cannot_ cater all the overlays. There has been enough time to react.
>
> -- juippis

Maybe I understand wrongly, but I had received in the past automatic bug
reports from Gentoo QA check related to my overlay. My suggestion is to
use the Gentoo QA to automatically report that, since with the new merge
with the removal of EGO_VENDOR that would be validated automatically in
future Gentoo QA check runs over the overlays at overlays.gentoo.org.

Anyway I can do as you suggests.

Thanks



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 61 bytes --]

All,

this patch is being committed today.

Thanks,

William

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]