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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
