Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
All, this patch is being committed today. Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
Hi, On 5/12/20 6:40 PM, Joonas Niilola wrote: > On 5/12/20 8:36 PM, Samuel Bernardo wrote: >> My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have >> enabled. >> >> Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to >> remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays? >> >> This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs. >> > Nothing stops you from doing that, and reporting any issues you find to > overlay maintainers. This is probably doable with a single grep. We > _cannot_ cater all the overlays. There has been enough time to react. > > -- juippis Maybe I understand wrongly, but I had received in the past automatic bug reports from Gentoo QA check related to my overlay. My suggestion is to use the Gentoo QA to automatically report that, since with the new merge with the removal of EGO_VENDOR that would be validated automatically in future Gentoo QA check runs over the overlays at overlays.gentoo.org. Anyway I can do as you suggests. Thanks signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On 5/12/20 8:36 PM, Samuel Bernardo wrote: > > My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have > enabled. > > Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to > remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays? > > This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs. > Nothing stops you from doing that, and reporting any issues you find to overlay maintainers. This is probably doable with a single grep. We _cannot_ cater all the overlays. There has been enough time to react. -- juippis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
Hi William, On 5/12/20 4:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > this change will apply to all users of the eclass. > > Overlays are not considered blockers for in-tree eclass work. > > Also, keepin mind that there was a qa warning in place for this issue > for 3 months, so overlay owners should have been able to see that and > migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM. Yes, I confirm that I'm aware of that. Thank you for your good work! > That being said, if any overlay owner would like my assistance with > migrating their ebuilds, I have no problem with showing them how. No problem from my side, I have already do that. My concern was about the others, for instance go-overlay that I have enabled. Should it be possible to run a QA check to create a bug request to remember the update of those ebuilds in the overlays? This would reduce the bug management task when searching for related bugs. > Thanks, > > William Thanks, Samuel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:41:45AM +0100, Samuel Bernardo wrote: > Hi William, > > How about overlays using the eclass, will this changes only apply to EAPI 8? Hi Samuel, this change will apply to all users of the eclass. Overlays are not considered blockers for in-tree eclass work. Also, keepin mind that there was a qa warning in place for this issue for 3 months, so overlay owners should have been able to see that and migrate their ebuilds to EGO_SUM. That being said, if any overlay owner would like my assistance with migrating their ebuilds, I have no problem with showing them how. Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:47:23PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:00 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they > > > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. > > > > > > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the > > > tree. > > > > Sure, and I'm working on migrating them. > > I think all the replies to this thread could have been avoided by just > saying that in your initial email. :) I didn't have a problem with what dilfridge said or even with the list of points floppym came up with. My issue was more with the tone of floppym's reply, and that has been resolved. :-) William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:58 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs 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: > > I will respond to your points below, but first, I take offense to your > accusation of me being lazy especially since it seems pretty obvious you > didn't attempt to research my work before you said it. The phrasing of your original email, combined with a question you asked in IRC lead me to the wrong conclusion. Sorry about that.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
Hi William, How about overlays using the eclass, will this changes only apply to EAPI 8? Thanks, Samuel On 5/10/20 10:16 PM, William Hubbs 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? > > William Hubbs (1): > eclass/go-module.eclass: remove EGO_VENDOR support > > eclass/go-module.eclass | 81 +++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:00 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they > > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. > > > > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. > > Sure, and I'm working on migrating them. I think all the replies to this thread could have been avoided by just saying that in your initial email. :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:45:45AM +0300, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they > > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. > > You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. Sure, and I'm working on migrating them. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs 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: I will respond to your points below, but first, I take offense to your accusation of me being lazy especially since it seems pretty obvious you didn't attempt to research my work before you said it. > 1. Search for affected packages. Done. > 2. Contact the maintainers, possibly via bug reports. Already done. If you look at the packages I have been doing this conversion for so far, you would see that most of them are maintained by myself, zac or not maintained at all. > 3. Give them a some time to convert their packages. No one has had issues with me doing the work myself, so that is what has been happening. Also, keep in mind that there was a public announcement made on this list about migrating go packages to the go-module eclass, and no one spoke out then against it. > 4. Mask any packages that do not get updated. There's only one I have masked so far and that was per the maintainer. I did post the lastrites but it looks like I need to forward it to -dev or re-post it, I will take a look again after I respond to this message. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
> This patch makes migrating mandatory by forcing ebuilds to die if they > have EGO_VENDOR set and are using go-module.eclass. You can't commit this as long as there is a single such ebuild in the tree. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
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 > > 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 09:51 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs > 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?
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/1] remove EGO_VENDOR support from go-module.eclass
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM William Hubbs 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.