On 26/04/2023 18:12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> wrote:
The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main arguments why we
deprecated EGO_SUM.
You're requesting the changes. It's on you to read the previous
threads and try to understand. It's not others' responsibilities to
justify the status quo to you, but tl;dr is Manifest files grew to
insane sizes for golang packages with many dependencies, and the
Manifest size is a cost all Gentoo users pay regardless of whether
they use the package.
This is a valid point and I think it is clear. What is not clear however
is why the EGO_SUM method should be dropped entirely instead of keeping
it as an option for overlays (with an appropriate warning). As I
remember this is where the discussion got 'stuck' last time.
There are other cases where things are possible but prohibited in
::gentoo by policy. E.g. the acct-user eclass allows setting
ACCT_USER_ID to -1 for dynamic assignment, but we do not allow this in
::gentoo. I don't see why we could not do the same for EGO_SUM, keep it
as an option, while disallowing it in ::gentoo.
This way ridiculously large manifests are gone out of ::gentoo. But
overlays can still use the EGO_SUM method for their go packages if a
tarball is too much of a hassle. And everyone is happy. It is then the
responsibility of the overlay maintainers to ensure that their manifests
don't grow out of hand. A warning from the eclass and/or pkgcheck should
ensure that they are aware of the potential problem.
What am I missing? I truly do not understand why this matter is not
resolved already and why we continue to have this discussion again and
again. The solution just seems so simple.
Best regards,
Andrew
