On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 11:30 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 13/06/2022 10.29, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:44 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > > Judging from the gentoo-dev@ mailing list discussion [1] about EGO_SUM, > > > where some voices where in agreement that EGO_SUM has its raison d'être, > > > while there where no arguments in favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM, > > > I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. > > > > > > 1: > > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa > > > > > > > "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired > > and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees". > > I understand this comment so that there was already a discussion about > deprecating and removing EGO_SUM. I usually try to follow what's going > on Gentoo and I remember the discussion about introducing dependency > tarballs. But I apparently have missed the part where EGO_SUM was slated > for removal. And it appears I am not the only one, at least Ionen also > wrote "Missed bits and pieces but was never quite sure why this went > toward full deprecation, just discouraged may have been fair enough, …". > > In any case, I am sorry for bringing this discussion up again. But since > I started rehashing this, no arguments why EGO_SUM should be removed > have been provided. And so far, I failed to find the old discussions > where I'd hope to find some rationale behind the deprecation of EGO_SUM. :/ >
I disagree. Robin has made a pretty complete summary in his mail, with numbers that prove how bad EGO_SUM is/was [1]. While he may have disagreed with dependency tarballs, he brought pretty clear arguments how EGO_SUM is even worse. Multiplied by all the Gentoo systems that won't ever install 95% of Go packages, yet all have to carry their overhead. [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/8e2a4002bfc6258d65dcf725db347cb9 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
