Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:58:04PM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 16.7.2022 14.24, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > 
> > That reads as if you wrote it under the assumption that we can only
> > either use dependency tarballs or use EGO_SUM. At the same time, I have
> > not seen an argument why we can not simply do *both*.
> > 
> > EGO_SUM has numerous advantages over dependency tarballs, but can not be
> > used if the size of the EGO_SUM value crosses a threshold. So why not
> > mandate dependency tarballs if a point is crossed and otherwise allow
> > EGO_SUM? That way, we could have the best of both worlds.
> > 
> > - Flow
> > 
> 
> ++ this sounds most sensible. This is also how I've understood your
> proposal.

Remember that with EGO_SUM all of the bloated manifests and ebuilds are
on every user's system.

I added mgorny as a cc to this message because he made it pretty clear
at some point in the previous discussion that the size of these ebuilds
and manifests is unacceptable.

William

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