public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] About EGO_SUM
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 13:18:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d4adb56-34be-7058-3979-2c99178251dd@gentoo.org> (raw)

EGO_SUM is marked as 'deprecated' in go-module.eclass [1, 2]. I 
acknowledge that there are packages where the usage of EGO_SUM is very 
problematic. However, I wonder if there are packages where using 
dependency tarballs is problematic while using EGO_SUM would be not.

Take for example an ebuild containing

SRC_URI="
 
https://salsa.debian.org/baz/${PN}/-/archive/v${PV}/${PN}-v${PV}.tar.bz2 
-> ${P}.tar.bz2
     https://personal.site/files/gentoo/${P}-vendor.tar.xz
"

where ${P}-vendor.tar.xz is a Go dependency tarball, containing only a 
few Go modules. Hence EGO_SUM would contain only a few entries in this case.

I see multiple issues of using dependency tarballs in such cases.

First, my trust in a tarball created by someone and hosted somewhere is 
lower than the contents of the artifacts hosted on an official hub. 
Next, if anyone takes the time to review the contents of the dependency 
tarball, it may only benefit Gentoo. On the other hand, if someone 
reviews EGO_SUM artifacts, the whole Go ecosystem will benefit.

I may not know Gentoo's mirror system in detail, but I believe using 
EGO_SUM facilitates cross-package distfile sharing. While dependency 
tarballs will increase the space requirements, and, probably more 
importantly, the load on the mirrors.

Even more problematic are that dependency tarballs require additional 
steps that would not be required when EGO_SUM is used. While those steps 
appear simple, behavioral theory shows that even the tiniest additional 
steps have a huge impact (e.g., online shops loose a relative large 
share of customers if for each an additional checkout step). If we force 
dependency tarballs for Go software, then packaging Go software just 
become a little bit harder.

This leads me to the question why are we actually deprecating EGO_SUM? 
It seems like a nice alternative for Go packaging that we may want to 
keep. But maybe I am missing something?

- Flow


1: 
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/blob/9fec686abf789fdff36a90c3763d9558203cbf9a/eclass/go-module.eclass#L108
2: 
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/blob/9fec686abf789fdff36a90c3763d9558203cbf9a/eclass/go-module.eclass#L349-L352


             reply	other threads:[~2022-06-03 11:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-03 11:18 Florian Schmaus [this message]
2022-06-03 12:56 ` [gentoo-dev] About EGO_SUM Ionen Wolkens
2022-06-08 20:42 ` Robin H. Johnson
2022-06-09  6:18   ` [gentoo-dev] " Madhu
2022-06-09 17:49   ` [gentoo-dev] " Sebastian Pipping
2022-06-09 18:16     ` Anna
2022-06-09 18:33     ` John Helmert III

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9d4adb56-34be-7058-3979-2c99178251dd@gentoo.org \
    --to=flow@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox