Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1503 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26:43PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> 
> >>>> Judging from the gentoo-dev@ mailing list discussion [1] about EGO_SUM,
> >>>> where some voices where in agreement that EGO_SUM has its raison d'être,
> >>>> while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM,
> >>>> I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa
> 
> >> Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers?
> 
> > What is 'this' here?
> 
> Undeprecating EGO_SUM.
> 
> > The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the
> > go-module eclass.
> 
> > Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency
> > tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to
> > dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo.

Like I said on my earlier reply, there have been packages that break
using EGO_SUM. Also, Robin's proposal will not be happening, if it does,
for some time since it will require an eapi bump and doesn't have a
working implementation.

The most pressing concern about EGO_SUM is that it can make portage
crash because of the size of SRC_URI, so it definitely should not be
preferred over dependency tarballs.

If you want to chat more about this on the list we can, but for now,
let's not undeprecate EGO_SUM in the eclass.

William

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