From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C889B158091 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:03:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88503E08A2; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF2BE07EF for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:03:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20220613074411.341909-1-flow@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 3545d744-67a6-4195-98fb-21459eddb3ec X-Archives-Hash: 713dd4cf903e15a62e6a1791f2398a27 On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 11:30 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 13/06/2022 10.29, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:44 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > > Judging from the gentoo-dev@ mailing list discussion [1] about EGO_SU= M, > > > where some voices where in agreement that EGO_SUM has its raison d'= =C3=AAtre, > > > while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SU= M, > > > I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. > > >=20 > > > 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd= 48a58a95f2faa > > >=20 > >=20 > > "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired > > and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees". >=20 > I understand this comment so that there was already a discussion about= =20 > deprecating and removing EGO_SUM. I usually try to follow what's going= =20 > on Gentoo and I remember the discussion about introducing dependency=20 > tarballs. But I apparently have missed the part where EGO_SUM was slated= =20 > for removal. And it appears I am not the only one, at least Ionen also= =20 > wrote "Missed bits and pieces but was never quite sure why this went=20 > toward full deprecation, just discouraged may have been fair enough, =E2= =80=A6". >=20 > In any case, I am sorry for bringing this discussion up again. But since= =20 > I started rehashing this, no arguments why EGO_SUM should be removed=20 > have been provided. And so far, I failed to find the old discussions=20 > where I'd hope to find some rationale behind the deprecation of EGO_SUM. = :/ >=20 I disagree. Robin has made a pretty complete summary in his mail, with numbers that prove how bad EGO_SUM is/was [1]. While he may have disagreed with dependency tarballs, he brought pretty clear arguments how EGO_SUM is even worse. Multiplied by all the Gentoo systems that won't ever install 95% of Go packages, yet all have to carry their overhead. [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/8e2a4002bfc6258d65dcf725db34= 7cb9 --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny