On 24/04/2023 18.11, Florian Schmaus wrote:
I like to ask the Gentoo council to vote on whether EGO_SUM should be
reinstated ("un-deprecated") or not.
I am thankful that the council considered my request to vote on the
topic. However, the council decided not to vote on this in its last
sessio
On 2023-05-30 17:52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
> can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule out that
> I missed a post that includes specific numbers, please share your ideas
> on how EGO_SUM could be rei
On 30/05/2023 18.52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> I am thankful that the council considered my request to vote on the
> topic. However, the council decided not to vote on this in its last
> session and to return the issue to the mailing lists.
>
> Some see the requirement of some limitations as nec
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 21:30:49 +0500, Anna (cybertailor) Vyalkova wrote:
> On 2023-05-30 17:52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
> > can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule out that
> > I missed a post tha
On 30/05/2023 18:35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
My solution is as such:
1. Undeprecate EGO_SUM in eclass
2. Forbid it's usage in ::gentoo (done by pkgcheck, error level, will
fail CI and as such we can see the misuse). Overlays are allowed.
3. Maintainer starts talks with upstreams to add release wor
> Arthur Zamarin hat am 30.05.2023 18:35 CEST
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Currently the best solution *per package* is to speak with upstream, to
> add a CI workflow which create a source tarball which includes `vendor`
> dir. This is the best way, and I'm doing that for multiple upstream of
> some
