Re: [gentoo-dev] EGO_SUM (was: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org>]

On 2023-07-03 Mon 04:17, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>On 30/06/2023 13.33, Eray Aslan wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 03:38:11AM -0600, Tim Harder wrote:
>>>Why do we have to keep exporting the related variables that generally
>>>cause these size issues to the environment?
>>
>>I really do not want to make a +1 response but this is an excellent
>>question that we need to answer before implementing EGO_SUM.
>
>Could you please discuss why you make the reintroduction of EGO_SUM 
>dependent on this question?

Just to be clear, I don't particularly care about EGO_SUM enough to gate
its reintroduction (and don't have any leverage to do so anyway). I'm
just tired of the circular discussions around env issues that all seem
to avoid actual fixes, catering instead to functionality used by a
vanishingly small subset of ebuilds in the main repo that compels a
certain design mostly due to how portage functioned before EAPI 0.

Other than that, supporting EGO_SUM (or any other language ecosystem
trending towards distro-unfriendly releases) is fine as long as devs are
cognizant how the related global-scope eclass design affects everyone
running or working on the raw repo. I hope devs continue leveraging the
relatively recent benchmark tooling (and perhaps more future support) to
improve their work. Along those lines, it could be nice to see sample
benchmark data in commit messages for large, global-scope eclass work
just to reinforce that it was taken into account.

Tim