On 14/06/2022 11.37, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 10:29 +0200, 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".
First of all, I am sorry for my tone.
No worries and no offense taken. I can easily see how this could be
considered rehashing a old discussion, but the truth is simply that the
deprecation of EGO_SUM cough me by surprise.
I have been thinking about it and I was wrong to oppose this change.
I have been conflating two problem: EGO_SUM and Manifest sizes.
However, while EGO_SUM might be an important factor contributing to
the latter, I think we shouldn't single it out and instead focus
on addressing the actual problem.
Exactly my line of though. Especially since it is not unlikely that we
will run into this problem with other programming language ecosystems
too (where the "dependency tarball" solution may not be easily viable).
That said, I believe it's within maintainer's right to decide what API
to deprecate and what API to support. So I'd suggest getting William's
approval for this rather than changing the supported API of that eclass
via drive-by commits.
That was never my intention, hence the subject starts with "Proposal to"
and I explicitly but William in CC. I believed that one week after the
discussion around my initial gentoo-dev@ post, which gave me the
impression that un-deprecating EGO_SUM has some supporters and no
opposer, it was time to post a concrete proposal in form of a suggested
code change.
Looking forward to William's take on this. :)
- Flow
