My 2 cents. As somebody who contributes to ::guru, I would like to
second that having a burden of hosting dependencies tarballs feels
like an obstacle. Pursuing upstream projects to adopt dependencies
bundling is often difficult (it's hard to convince developers to
change their workflows to make the life of ebuild packagers easier).
Latter is leading to forking the project on GitHub/Gitlab with the
only goal to cut release of dependencies tarball.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:33 PM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> [CCing williamh@ as go-module.eclass & dev-lang/go maintainer.]
>
> > I like to ask the Gentoo council to vote on whether EGO_SUM should be
> > reinstated ("un-deprecated") or not.
> >
> > EGO_SUM is a project-comprehensive matter, as it affects not only
> > Go-lang packaging but also the proxy-maint and GURU
> > projects. Furthermore, as I have mentioned in my previous emails, the
> > deprecation of EGO_SUM has a significant negative impact on our users
> > and is, therefore, a global Gentoo issue.
> >
> > Asking for council involvement should be a last resort and only be
> > done in essential conflicts. But, unfortunately, I was unable to
> > convince the relevant maintainer with arguments that the deprecation
> > of EGO_SUM is harmful. And this matter is significant enough to
> > proceed with this.
>
> My feeling on this is that this proposal isn't yet complete enough
> for the council to assess. In the various previous discussions, the need
> for _some_ limit to be implemented (derived from EGO_SUM) was clear from
> the QA team and others.
>
> Voting on the matter now would be reopening the issue which led EGO_SUM
> to be deprecated in the first place, with only a partial mitigation
> (the Portage warning).
>
> Any such limit should be supported by pkgcheck, allow using EGO_SUM
> for most packages, but exclude the pathological cases which we're
> unlikely to want in ::gentoo.
>
> (Limit-per-ebuild rather than per-package is one option of many,
> too.)
>
> >
> > Most voices on the related mailing-list threads expressed support for
> > reinstating EGO_SUM. At least, that is my impression. While the
> > arguments used to deprecate EGO_SUM were mostly of esthetic nature.
> >
> > I want to state what should be common sense. Namely, asking for a
> > democratic vote is not a personal attack against any involved
> > person.
> > [...]
>
> I agree this is an important issue that affects the practicality
> of using Gentoo for some, and for contributing to Gentoo to others.
>
> >
> > On 17/04/2023 09.37, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >> [original msg snipped]

Reply via email to