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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to