On 17/06/2022 18.27, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26:43PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, 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
On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 07:21:13PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 01/10/2022 18.36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sat, 01 Oct 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
> >> Bug #719201 was triggered by dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2000. It
> >> appears that the ebuild had more than 6000 entries
On 01/10/2022 18.36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Bug #719201 was triggered by dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2000. It
appears that the ebuild had more than 6000 entries in SRC_URI [1],
That includes double counting and must be divided by the number of
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> Bug #719201 was triggered by dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2000. It
> appears that the ebuild had more than 6000 entries in SRC_URI [1],
That includes double counting and must be divided by the number of
developers in TEXLIVE_DEVS. AFAICS that
On 30/09/2022 21.49, Alec Warner wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:53 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
And quite frankly, I don't see a problem with "large" Manifests and/or
ebuilds. Yes, it means our FTPs are hosting many files, in some cases
even many small files. And yes, it means that in some
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 12:49:02PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:53 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
> > On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:07:44PM +0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Friday, 30 September 2022 02:36:05 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > I don't know for certain about a vendor tarball, but I do know there
> > are instances where a vendor tarball wouldn't work.
> >
Hey,
On Friday, 30 September 2022 02:36:05 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> I don't know for certain about a vendor tarball, but I do know there
> are instances where a vendor tarball wouldn't work.
> app-containers/containerd is a good example of this, That is why the
> vendor tarball idea was
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:53 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >>> 2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo
> On 30 Sep 2022, at 15:53, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo developer
On Wed, 2022-09-28 at 17:28 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely >
> > deprecate
> > EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
> >
> > We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1].
> > Restic > is
> > a very popular
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:53:39PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >>> 2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo
Hi,
When the size of the repo is considered too big maybe we can revisit the option
of having the portage tree distributed as a compressed sqashfs image.
$ du -hs /var/db/repos/gentoo
536M.
$ gensquashfs -k -q -b 1M -D /var/db/repos/gentoo -c zstd -X level=22
Hi,
On 2022/09/30 16:53, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> jkroon@plastiekpoot ~ $ du -sh /var/db/repos/gentoo/
>> 644M /var/db/repos/gentoo/
>>
>> I'm not against exploding this by another 200 or even 300 MB personally,
>> but I do agree that pointless bloat is bad, and ideally we want to
>> shrink
On 30/09/2022 16.36, Jaco Kroon wrote:
Hi All,
This doesn't directly affect me. Nor am I familiar with the mechanisms.
Perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest that EGO_SUM itself may be
externalized. I don't know what goes in here, and this will likely
require help from portage itself, so may not
On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo developer
maintains the package
3.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1500 and a
Hi All,
This doesn't directly affect me. Nor am I familiar with the mechanisms.
Perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest that EGO_SUM itself may be
externalized. I don't know what goes in here, and this will likely
require help from portage itself, so may not be directly viable.
What if portage had
On 28/09/2022 23.23, John Helmert III wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely deprecate
EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1].
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> > I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely
> > deprecate EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
Don't worry, I am not offended. I just haven't found
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely deprecate
> EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
>
> We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1]. Restic is
> a very popular backup
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely
> deprecate EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
> We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1]. Restic
> is a very popular backup software written in Go.
I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely deprecate
EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1]. Restic is
a very popular backup software written in Go. The PR drops EGO_SUM in
favor of a vendor tarball
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 10:20:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The only question is, is there a way to reliably tell whether or not
> > we are in the main tree?
>
> An eclass has no legitimate way to find out in which repository it
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, William Hubbs wrote:
> I could force this in the eclass with the following flow if I know how
> to tell if the ebuild inheriting it is in the main tree or not:
> # in_main_tree is a place holder for a test to see if the ebuld running
> # this is in the tree
> if
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 06:46:40PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 09:31:35PM +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > I want to give another option. Both ways are allowed by eclass, but by
> > QA policy (or some other decision), it is prohibited to use EGO_SUM in
> > main
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 09:31:35PM +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> I want to give another option. Both ways are allowed by eclass, but by
> QA policy (or some other decision), it is prohibited to use EGO_SUM in
> main ::gentoo tree.
>
> As a result, overlays and ::guru can use the EGO_SUM or dist
On 16/07/2022 20.51, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:58:04PM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote:
>> On 16.7.2022 14.24, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ++ this sounds most sensible. This is also how I've understood your
>> proposal.
>
> Remember that with EGO_SUM all of the bloated
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:58:04PM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 16.7.2022 14.24, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
> > That reads as if you wrote it under the assumption that we can only
> > either use dependency tarballs or use EGO_SUM. At the same time, I have
> > not seen an argument why we can
On 16.7.2022 14.24, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> That reads as if you wrote it under the assumption that we can only
> either use dependency tarballs or use EGO_SUM. At the same time, I have
> not seen an argument why we can not simply do *both*.
>
> EGO_SUM has numerous advantages over dependency
On 15/07/2022 23.34, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:43:19AM +0200, Zoltan Puskas wrote:
In summary, IMHO the EGO_SUM way of handling of go packages has more
benefits than drawbacks compared to the vendor tarballs.
EGO_SUM can cause portage to break; that is the primary reason
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:43:19AM +0200, Zoltan Puskas wrote:
*snip*
> First of all one of the advantages of Gentoo is that it gets it's source
> code from upstream (yes, I'm aware of mirrors acting as a cache layer),
> which means that poisoning source code needs to be done at upstream
>
Hey,
>
> Rephrasing this just to ensure I'm understanding it correctly: you're
> suggesting to move _everything_ that uses Go into its own overlay. Let's
> call it gentoo-go for the sake of the example.
>
> If the above is accurate, then I hard disagree.
Yes, that was the suggestion, you
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:43:19 +0200, Zoltan Puskas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on adding a go based ebuild to Gentoo yesterday and I
> got this warning form portage saying that EGO_SUM is deprecated and
> should be avoided. Since I remember there was an intense discussion
> about
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26:43PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, 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
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
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
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
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, 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
On 13/06/2022 10.49, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, 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
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
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, 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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
