On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 06:13:19PM +0200, David Seifert wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 09:51 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > now that go 1.14.2 is stable, I want to remove the EGO_VENDOR > > > support from > > > go-module.eclass. > > > > > > This was kept when the EGO_SUM support was added on 4 Mar, with a qa > > > warning advising people to migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM. > > > > > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if > > > they > > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > It seems like you're being very lazy about this. At a minimum, you > > should do the following: > > > > 1. Search for affected packages. > > 2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports. > > 3. Give them a some time to convert their packages. > > 4. Mask any packages that do not get updated. > > > > Wow, and python changing one line in its implementation details is > breaking the world, whereas there's still a ton of users of EGO_VENDOR > in the tree?
I'm looking at a specific combination at this point. The ebuilds I'm looking at inherit go-module *and* use EGO_VENDOR. Most of these have already been fixed because I have permission from the maintainers to work on them or I am the maintainer. The hard part is going to be the work of migrating ebuilds that inherit golang-* and use EGO_VENDOR over to go-module. That will take work with upstreams in some cases to make it happen. William
Description: PGP signature