Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 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 Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? What is 'this' here? Undeprecating EGO_SUM. The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the go-module eclass. Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo. Like I said on my earlier reply, there have been packages that break using EGO_SUM. Those packages can't obviously use EGO_SUM, but this should *not* mean that we generally ban EGO_SUM. The most pressing concern about EGO_SUM is that it can make portage crash because of the size of SRC_URI, so it definitely should not be preferred over dependency tarballs. I think an approach like my posted patch, which makes go-modules.eclass invoke 'die' if A exceeds a certain threshold, should make developers in most situations aware that it is time to switch their package to use a dependency tarball instead of EGO_SUM. The remaining situations are the ones where a package initially exceeds the MAX_ARG_STRLEN limit, and where a certain USE-flag combination causes the limit to be exceeded. The former should not be real issue, as such ebuilds should never been committed, as they could never work. The later can be solved by exhaustive testing of all possible USE flag combinations. - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 in SRC_URI [1], > > > > That includes double counting and must be divided by the number of > > developers in TEXLIVE_DEVS. AFAICS that number was two in 2020. So 3000 > > is more realistic as a number there. > > That may be very well the case. I'd appreciate if you would elaborate on > the double counting. If someone knows a good and easy way to compute A > for an ebuild, then please let me know. That would help to get more > meaningful data. > > > >> from which A is generated from. Hence even a EGO_SUM limit of 3000 > >> entries should provide enough safety margin to avoid any Golang ebuild > >> running into this. > > > > See above, with 3000 entries there may be zero safety margin. It also > > depends on total filename length, because the limit is the Linux > > kernel's MAX_ARG_STRLEN (which is 128 KiB). > > Of course, this is a rough estimation assuming that the filename length > is roughly the same on average. That said, my proposed limit for EGO_SUM > is 1500, which is still half of 3000 and should still provide enough > safety margin. Since EGO_SUM_SRC_URI is the variable that gets added to SRC_URI, I would rather put the limitation there instead of EGO_SUM if we do end up keeping this. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 developers in TEXLIVE_DEVS. AFAICS that number was two in 2020. So 3000 is more realistic as a number there. That may be very well the case. I'd appreciate if you would elaborate on the double counting. If someone knows a good and easy way to compute A for an ebuild, then please let me know. That would help to get more meaningful data. from which A is generated from. Hence even a EGO_SUM limit of 3000 entries should provide enough safety margin to avoid any Golang ebuild running into this. See above, with 3000 entries there may be zero safety margin. It also depends on total filename length, because the limit is the Linux kernel's MAX_ARG_STRLEN (which is 128 KiB). Of course, this is a rough estimation assuming that the filename length is roughly the same on average. That said, my proposed limit for EGO_SUM is 1500, which is still half of 3000 and should still provide enough safety margin. - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
> 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 number was two in 2020. So 3000 is more realistic as a number there. > from which A is generated from. Hence even a EGO_SUM limit of 3000 > entries should provide enough safety margin to avoid any Golang ebuild > running into this. See above, with 3000 entries there may be zero safety margin. It also depends on total filename length, because the limit is the Linux kernel's MAX_ARG_STRLEN (which is 128 KiB). Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 cases ebuild
parsing takes a bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the
past few months and was not presented with any real world issues that
EGO_SUM caused. If someone wants to fill in here, then now is a good
time to speak up. But my impression is that the arguments against
EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, please correct me if I am
wrong.
I thought the problem was that EGO_SUM ends up in SRC_URI, which ends
up in A. A ends up in the environment, and then exec() fails with
E2BIG because there is an imposed limit on environment variables (and
also command line argument length.)
Did this get fixed?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/719202
Bug #719201 was triggered by dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2000. It
appears that the ebuild had more than 6000 entries in SRC_URI [1], from
which A is generated from. Hence even a EGO_SUM limit of 3000 entries
should provide enough safety margin to avoid any Golang ebuild running
into this.
- Flow
1: Estimated via
curl
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/39474128bc64d6d4738c9647dbd3b0d1c1268fc4/metadata/md5-cache/dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2020
| grep SRC_URI | awk -F" " '{print NF-1}'
OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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: > > >>> 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 proxied > > >>> maintainer maintains the package > > >> > > >> These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 > > >> distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the > > >> 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) > > > > The numbers may appear large when compared to the whole tree, but I > > think a fair comparison would be within the related programming language > > ecosystem, e.g., Golang or Rust. > > > > For example, analyzing ::gentoo yields the following histogram for > > 2022-01-01: > > https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum_entries_histogram-2020-01-01.png > > > > > > > To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ > > > ebuilds and897 distfiles. > > > > > > I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 > > > entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. > > > > A limit of 256 appears to be to low to be of any use. It is slightly > > above the 50th percentile, half of the packages could not use it. > > > > We have to realize that programming language ecosystems that only build > > static binaries tend to produce software projects that have a large > > number of dependencies. For example, app-misc/broot, a tool written in > > Rust, has currently 310 entries in its Manifest. Why should we threat > > one programming language different from another? Will be see voices that > > ask for banning Rust packages in ::gentoo in the future? With the rising > > popularity of Golang and Rust, we will (hopefully) only ever see an > > increase of such packages in ::gentoo. And most existing packages in > > this category will at best keep their dependency count constant, but are > > also likely to accumulate further dependencies over time. > > > > 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 cases ebuild > > parsing takes a bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the > > past few months and was not presented with any real world issues that > > EGO_SUM caused. If someone wants to fill in here, then now is a good > > time to speak up. But my impression is that the arguments against > > EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, please correct me if I am > > wrong. > > I thought the problem was that EGO_SUM ends up in SRC_URI, which ends > up in A. A ends up in the environment, and then exec() fails with > E2BIG because there is an imposed limit on environment variables (and > also command line argument length.) > > Did this get fixed? > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/719202 You are correct this was part of the issue as well. I don't know what the status of this bug is. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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.
> > app-containers/containerd is a good example of this, That is why the
> > vendor tarball idea was dropped.
> It is indeed not possible to verify vendor tarballs[1]. The proposed
> solution Go people had would also require network access.
>
> > Upstream doesn't need to provide a tarball, just an up-to-date
> > "vendor" directory at the top level of the project. Two examples that
> > do this are docker and kubernetes.
> Upstreams doing this sounds like a mess, because then they'd have to
> maintain multiple source trees in their repositories, if I understand
> what you mean.
Well, there isn't a lot of work involved in this for upstream, they just
run:
$ go mod vendor
at the top level of their project and keep that directory in sync in
their vcs. The down side is it can be big and some upstreams do not want
to do it.
>
> An alternative to vendor tarballs is modcache tarballs. These are
> absolutely massive (~20 times larger IIRC), though, they are verifiable.
The modcache tarballs are what I'm calling dependency tarballs, and yes
they are bigger than vendor tarballs and verifiable.
Also, the go-module eclass sets the GOMODCACHE environment variable to
point to the directory where the contents of the dependency tarball ends
up which makes it easy for the go tooling to just use the information in
that directory.
If we can get bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 to happen in eapi 9,
that would solve all of this.
The next step after I got that to happen would be to put a shared go
module cache in, for example, "${DISTDIR}/go-mod", so that all go
modules from packages would be downloaded there, and they would be
consumed like all distfiles are.
> opinion: I see no way around it. Vendor tarballs are the way to go. For
> trivial cases, this can likely be EGO_SUM, but it scales exceedingly
> poorly, to the point of the trivial case being a very small percentage
> of Go packages. I proposed authenticated automation on Gentoo
> infrastructure as a solution to this, and implemented (a slow and
> unreliable) proof of concept (posted previously). The obvious question
> of "how will proxy maintainers deal with this" is also relatively
> simple: giving them authorization for a subset of packages that they'd
> need to work on. This is an obvious increase in the barrier of entry for
> fresh proxy maintainers, but it's still likely less than needing
> maintainers to rework ebuilds to use vendor tarballs on dev.g.o.
Vendor tarballs are not complete. The best example of this I see in the tree is
app-containers/containerd. If you try to build that with a vendor tarball
instead of a dependency tarball, the build will break, but it works with
a dependency tarball.
William
>
>
> [1]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/27348
> --
> Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 dropped. It is indeed not possible to verify vendor tarballs[1]. The proposed solution Go people had would also require network access. > Upstream doesn't need to provide a tarball, just an up-to-date > "vendor" directory at the top level of the project. Two examples that > do this are docker and kubernetes. Upstreams doing this sounds like a mess, because then they'd have to maintain multiple source trees in their repositories, if I understand what you mean. An alternative to vendor tarballs is modcache tarballs. These are absolutely massive (~20 times larger IIRC), though, they are verifiable. opinion: I see no way around it. Vendor tarballs are the way to go. For trivial cases, this can likely be EGO_SUM, but it scales exceedingly poorly, to the point of the trivial case being a very small percentage of Go packages. I proposed authenticated automation on Gentoo infrastructure as a solution to this, and implemented (a slow and unreliable) proof of concept (posted previously). The obvious question of "how will proxy maintainers deal with this" is also relatively simple: giving them authorization for a subset of packages that they'd need to work on. This is an obvious increase in the barrier of entry for fresh proxy maintainers, but it's still likely less than needing maintainers to rework ebuilds to use vendor tarballs on dev.g.o. [1]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/27348 -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 developer > >>> maintains the package > >>> 3.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1500 and a proxied > >>> maintainer maintains the package > >> > >> These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 > >> distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the > >> 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) > > The numbers may appear large when compared to the whole tree, but I > think a fair comparison would be within the related programming language > ecosystem, e.g., Golang or Rust. > > For example, analyzing ::gentoo yields the following histogram for > 2022-01-01: > https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum_entries_histogram-2020-01-01.png > > > > To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ > > ebuilds and897 distfiles. > > > > I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 > > entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. > > A limit of 256 appears to be to low to be of any use. It is slightly > above the 50th percentile, half of the packages could not use it. > > We have to realize that programming language ecosystems that only build > static binaries tend to produce software projects that have a large > number of dependencies. For example, app-misc/broot, a tool written in > Rust, has currently 310 entries in its Manifest. Why should we threat > one programming language different from another? Will be see voices that > ask for banning Rust packages in ::gentoo in the future? With the rising > popularity of Golang and Rust, we will (hopefully) only ever see an > increase of such packages in ::gentoo. And most existing packages in > this category will at best keep their dependency count constant, but are > also likely to accumulate further dependencies over time. > > 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 cases ebuild > parsing takes a bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the > past few months and was not presented with any real world issues that > EGO_SUM caused. If someone wants to fill in here, then now is a good > time to speak up. But my impression is that the arguments against > EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, please correct me if I am > wrong. I thought the problem was that EGO_SUM ends up in SRC_URI, which ends up in A. A ends up in the environment, and then exec() fails with E2BIG because there is an imposed limit on environment variables (and also command line argument length.) Did this get fixed? https://bugs.gentoo.org/719202 > > - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
> 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 maintains the package 3.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1500 and a proxied maintainer maintains the package >>> >>> These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 >>> distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the >>> 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) > > The numbers may appear large when compared to the whole tree, but I think a > fair comparison would be within the related programming language ecosystem, > e.g., Golang or Rust. > > For example, analyzing ::gentoo yields the following histogram for 2022-01-01: > https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum_entries_histogram-2020-01-01.png > > >> To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ >> ebuilds and897 distfiles. >> I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 >> entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. > > A limit of 256 appears to be to low to be of any use. It is slightly above > the 50th percentile, half of the packages could not use it. > > We have to realize that programming language ecosystems that only build > static binaries tend to produce software projects that have a large number of > dependencies. For example, app-misc/broot, a tool written in Rust, has > currently 310 entries in its Manifest. Why should we threat one programming > language different from another? Will be see voices that ask for banning Rust > packages in ::gentoo in the future? With the rising popularity of Golang and > Rust, we will (hopefully) only ever see an increase of such packages in > ::gentoo. And most existing packages in this category will at best keep their > dependency count constant, but are also likely to accumulate further > dependencies over time. > > 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 cases ebuild parsing takes a > bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the past few months and was > not presented with any real world issues that EGO_SUM caused. If someone > wants to fill in here, then now is a good time to speak up. But my impression > is that the arguments against EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, > please correct me if I am wrong. > I need to re-read the whole set of new messages in this thread, but there's still the issue of xargs/command length limits from huge variable contents. Best, sam signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 backup software written in Go. The PR drops EGO_SUM > > in > > favor of a vendor tarball created by the proxied maintainer. > > However, > I > > am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the 35 MiB > > > source > > contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool exists, this > > would > > mean another manual step is required, which is, potentially, > > skipped > > most of the time, weakening our user's security. This is because I > > believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, nor any Golang > > tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor tarball > > against > > upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, > > but > > discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide > > > EGO_SUM > > as option but disallow its use if > > 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball > > 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 proxied > > > maintainer > > maintains the package > > > > In case of 3, I would encourage proxy maintainers to create and > > > provide > > the vendor tarball. > > > > The suggested EGO_SUM limits result from a histogram that I created > > analyzing ::gentoo at 2022-01-01, i.e., a few months before EGO_SUM > > > was > > deprecated. I think those numbers are too large but overall I think bringing back EGO_SUM in limited form is a good move, because it allows packaging go ebuilds in an easy and audit-able way. If you have vendor tarball - it's completely opaque before you unpack. With EGO_SUM you could parse ebuilds using that and scan for vulnerable go modules. and ofc vendored source hosting is a problem >From rust's team perspective ( we use CRATES, which is EGO_SUM inspiration, but _much_ more compact one) - I'd say take largest rust ebuild and allow as much as that or slightly more. x11-terms/alacritty is one of largest and CRATES number of lines is about 210 per 1 ebuild. So I'd say set maximum EGO_SUM size to 256 for ::gentoo, or maybe 512, remove limit for overlays completely. and introduce a hard die() in eclass if EGO_SUM is larger than that. not sure if you can detect repo name in eclass. In that case pkgcheck and CI could enforce that as fat warnings or errors. 256/512 limitation will not impose limit on manifest directly, but if you have 5 versions of max 256/512 EGO_SUM loc - it'll be more reasonable than 5 versions of max 1500 EGO_SUM loc. rust/cargo ebuild will still produce more compact Manifest given same amount of lines though, so it's still not directly comparable. currently we have 3 versions of alacritty which uses 407 unique crates across 3 versions. Manifest size is about 120K, which is 20th largest in ::gentoo It's nothing compared to 2.5MB manifests we used to have in some of the largest go packages. > > > > - Flow > > > > 1: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/27050 > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 developer > >>> maintains the package > >>> 3.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1500 and a proxied > >>> maintainer maintains the package > >> > >> These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 > >> distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the > >> 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) > > The numbers may appear large when compared to the whole tree, but I > think a fair comparison would be within the related programming language > ecosystem, e.g., Golang or Rust. > > For example, analyzing ::gentoo yields the following histogram for > 2022-01-01: > https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum_entries_histogram-2020-01-01.png > > > > To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ > > ebuilds and897 distfiles. > > > > I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 > > entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. > > A limit of 256 appears to be to low to be of any use. It is slightly > above the 50th percentile, half of the packages could not use it. > > We have to realize that programming language ecosystems that only build > static binaries tend to produce software projects that have a large > number of dependencies. For example, app-misc/broot, a tool written in > Rust, has currently 310 entries in its Manifest. Why should we threat > one programming language different from another? Will be see voices that > ask for banning Rust packages in ::gentoo in the future? With the rising > popularity of Golang and Rust, we will (hopefully) only ever see an > increase of such packages in ::gentoo. And most existing packages in > this category will at best keep their dependency count constant, but are > also likely to accumulate further dependencies over time. I tend to agree with you honestly. I worked with Zac to come up with a different proposal which would allow upstream tooling for all languages that do this to work, but so far it is meeting resistance [1]. I will go back and add more information to that bug, but it will be later today before I can do that. I want to develop a poc to answer the statement that these would be live ebuilds if we allowed that. > 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 cases ebuild > parsing takes a bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the > past few months and was not presented with any real world issues that > EGO_SUM caused. If someone wants to fill in here, then now is a good > time to speak up. But my impression is that the arguments against > EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, please correct me if I am > wrong. I can't name any specific examples at the moment, but I have gotten some complaints about how long it takes to download and build go packages with hundreds of dependencies. Other than that, I'm not the one who voiced the problem originally, so we definitely need others to speak up. William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 /tmp/gentoo-current.zstd.sqfs $ du -h /tmp/gentoo-current.zstd.sqfs 47M /tmp/gentoo-current.zstd.sqfs Though that would probably open another can of worms around incremental updates to the portage tree, or more precisely the lack of it (i.e. increased bandwidth requirements). Regardless, as a proxied maintainer I agree with Flow's point of view here (I think I have expressed these in detail too in the past here) and would prefer undeprecating EGO_SUM. Zoltan On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 05:10:10PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > 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 the size requirements of the portage tree rather than enlarge. > > > > What is the problem if it is 400 MB more? ? What if we double the > > size? Would something break for you? Does that mean we should not add > > more packages to ::gentoo? Where do you draw the line? Would you > > rather have interested persons contribute to Gentoo or drive them away > > due the struggle that the EGO_SUM deprecation causes? > How long is a piece of string? > > I agree with you entirely. But if the tree gets to 10GB? > > At some point it may be worthwhile to split the tree similar to what > Debian does (or did, haven't checked in a while) where there is a core, > non-core repo etc ... except I suspect it may be better to split into > classes of packages, eg, x11 (aka desktop) style packages etc, and keep > ::gentoo primarily to system stuff (which is also getting harder and > harder to define). And this also makes it harder for maintainers. And > this is really already what separate overlays does except the don't (as > far as I know) have the rigorous QA that ::gentoo has. > > But again - at what point do you do this - and this also adds extra > burden on maintainers and developers alike. > > And of course I could set a filter to not even --sync say /x11-* at > all. For example. Or /dev-go or /dev-php etc ... > > So perhaps you're right, this is a moot discussion. Perhaps we should > just say let's solve the problem when (if?) people complain the tree is > too big. No, I'm not being sarcastic, just blunt (; > > The majority of Gentoo users (in my experience) are probably of the > developer oriented mindset either way, or have very specific itches that > need scratching that's hard to scratch with other distributions. Let's > face it, Gentoo to begin with should probably not be considered an > "easy" distribution. But it is a highly flexible, pro-choice, extremely > customizable, rolling release distribution. Which scratches my itch. > > Incidentally, the only categories currently to individually exceed 10MB > are these: > > 11M media-libs > 11M net-misc > 12M dev-util > 13M dev-ruby > 16M dev-libs > 30M dev-perl > 31M dev-python > > And by far the biggest consumer of space: > > 124M metadata > > Kind Regards, > Jaco >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 the size requirements of the portage tree rather than enlarge. > > What is the problem if it is 400 MB more? ? What if we double the > size? Would something break for you? Does that mean we should not add > more packages to ::gentoo? Where do you draw the line? Would you > rather have interested persons contribute to Gentoo or drive them away > due the struggle that the EGO_SUM deprecation causes? How long is a piece of string? I agree with you entirely. But if the tree gets to 10GB? At some point it may be worthwhile to split the tree similar to what Debian does (or did, haven't checked in a while) where there is a core, non-core repo etc ... except I suspect it may be better to split into classes of packages, eg, x11 (aka desktop) style packages etc, and keep ::gentoo primarily to system stuff (which is also getting harder and harder to define). And this also makes it harder for maintainers. And this is really already what separate overlays does except the don't (as far as I know) have the rigorous QA that ::gentoo has. But again - at what point do you do this - and this also adds extra burden on maintainers and developers alike. And of course I could set a filter to not even --sync say /x11-* at all. For example. Or /dev-go or /dev-php etc ... So perhaps you're right, this is a moot discussion. Perhaps we should just say let's solve the problem when (if?) people complain the tree is too big. No, I'm not being sarcastic, just blunt (; The majority of Gentoo users (in my experience) are probably of the developer oriented mindset either way, or have very specific itches that need scratching that's hard to scratch with other distributions. Let's face it, Gentoo to begin with should probably not be considered an "easy" distribution. But it is a highly flexible, pro-choice, extremely customizable, rolling release distribution. Which scratches my itch. Incidentally, the only categories currently to individually exceed 10MB are these: 11M media-libs 11M net-misc 12M dev-util 13M dev-ruby 16M dev-libs 30M dev-perl 31M dev-python And by far the biggest consumer of space: 124M metadata Kind Regards, Jaco
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 be directly viable. What if portage had a feature whereby a SRC_URI list could be downloaded as a SRC_URI itself? In other words: SRC_URI_INDIRECT="https://wherever/lists_for_some_go_package.txt; That idea pops-up every time this is discussed. I don't see something like that anytime soon implemented in portage (please correct me if wrong) and it means that the ebuild development workflow requires some adjustments, to keep it as convenient as it currently is (but nothing couldn't be abstracted away by good tooling, i.e., pkgdev). 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 the size requirements of the portage tree rather than enlarge. What is the problem if it is 400 MB more? ? What if we double the size? Would something break for you? Does that mean we should not add more packages to ::gentoo? Where do you draw the line? Would you rather have interested persons contribute to Gentoo or drive them away due the struggle that the EGO_SUM deprecation causes? - Flow OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 proxied maintainer maintains the package These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) The numbers may appear large when compared to the whole tree, but I think a fair comparison would be within the related programming language ecosystem, e.g., Golang or Rust. For example, analyzing ::gentoo yields the following histogram for 2022-01-01: https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum_entries_histogram-2020-01-01.png To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ ebuilds and897 distfiles. I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. A limit of 256 appears to be to low to be of any use. It is slightly above the 50th percentile, half of the packages could not use it. We have to realize that programming language ecosystems that only build static binaries tend to produce software projects that have a large number of dependencies. For example, app-misc/broot, a tool written in Rust, has currently 310 entries in its Manifest. Why should we threat one programming language different from another? Will be see voices that ask for banning Rust packages in ::gentoo in the future? With the rising popularity of Golang and Rust, we will (hopefully) only ever see an increase of such packages in ::gentoo. And most existing packages in this category will at best keep their dependency count constant, but are also likely to accumulate further dependencies over time. 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 cases ebuild parsing takes a bit longer. But I spoke with a few developers in the past few months and was not presented with any real world issues that EGO_SUM caused. If someone wants to fill in here, then now is a good time to speak up. But my impression is that the arguments against EGO_SUM are mostly of cosmetic nature. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. - Flow OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 a feature whereby a SRC_URI list could be downloaded as a SRC_URI itself? In other words: SRC_URI_INDIRECT="https://wherever/lists_for_some_go_package.txt; Where that file itself contains lines for entries that would normally go into SRC_URI (directly or indirectly via EGO_SUM from what I can deduce). Something like: https://www.upstream.com/downloads/package-version.tar.gz => fneh.tar.gz|manifest portion goes here Where manifest portion would assume DIST and fneh.tar.gz, so would start with the filesize in bytes, followed by checksum value pairs as per current Manifest files. Since users may want to know how big the downloads for a specific ebuild is, some process to generate these external manifests may be in order, and to subsequently store the size of these indirect downloads themselves in the local manifest, so in the local Manifest, something like: IDIST lists_for_some_go_package.txt direct_size indirect_size CHECKSUM value CHECKSUM value. I realise this idea isn't immediately feasible, and perhaps not at all, presented here since perhaps it could spark an idea for someone else. It sounds like this is the problem that the vendor tarball tries to solve, but that that introduces a trust issue - not sure this exactly goes away but at a minimum we're now verifying download locations again (as per EGO_SUM or just SRC_URI in general) rather than code tarballs containing many many times more code than download locations. Given: 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 the size requirements of the portage tree rather than enlarge. Kind Regards, Jaco On 2022/09/30 15:57, Florian Schmaus wrote: > 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]. >>> Restic is >>> a very popular backup software written in Go. The PR drops EGO_SUM in >>> favor of a vendor tarball created by the proxied maintainer. However, I >>> am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the 35 MiB >>> source >>> contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool exists, this would >>> mean another manual step is required, which is, potentially, skipped >>> most of the time, weakening our user's security. This is because I >>> believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, nor any Golang >>> tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor tarball against >>> upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am wrong. >>> >>> I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but >>> discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM >>> as option but disallow its use if >>> 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball >>> 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 proxied maintainer >>> maintains the package >> >> I'm not sure I agree on these limits, given the authenticity problem >> exists regardless of how many dependencies there are. > > It's not really about authentication, you always have to trust > upstream to some degree (unless you audit every line of code). But I > believe that code distributed via official channels is viewed by more > eyes and significantly more secure. > > EGO_SUM entries are directly fetched from the official distribution > channels of Golang. Hence, there is a higher chance that malicious > code in one of those is detected faster, simply because they are > consumed by more entities. Compared to the dependency tarball that is > just used by Gentoo. In contrast to the official sources, "nobody" is > looking at the code inside the tarball. > > For proxied packages, where the dependency tarball is published by the > proxied maintainer, the tarball also allows another entity to inject > code into the final result of the package. And compared to a few small > patches in FILESDIR, such a dependency tarball requires more effort to > review. This further weakens security in comparison to EGO_SUM. > > - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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]. Restic is a very popular backup software written in Go. The PR drops EGO_SUM in favor of a vendor tarball created by the proxied maintainer. However, I am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the 35 MiB source contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool exists, this would mean another manual step is required, which is, potentially, skipped most of the time, weakening our user's security. This is because I believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, nor any Golang tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor tarball against upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am wrong. I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM as option but disallow its use if 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball 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 proxied maintainer maintains the package I'm not sure I agree on these limits, given the authenticity problem exists regardless of how many dependencies there are. It's not really about authentication, you always have to trust upstream to some degree (unless you audit every line of code). But I believe that code distributed via official channels is viewed by more eyes and significantly more secure. EGO_SUM entries are directly fetched from the official distribution channels of Golang. Hence, there is a higher chance that malicious code in one of those is detected faster, simply because they are consumed by more entities. Compared to the dependency tarball that is just used by Gentoo. In contrast to the official sources, "nobody" is looking at the code inside the tarball. For proxied packages, where the dependency tarball is published by the proxied maintainer, the tarball also allows another entity to inject code into the final result of the package. And compared to a few small patches in FILESDIR, such a dependency tarball requires more effort to review. This further weakens security in comparison to EGO_SUM. - Flow OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 a simple way to do this. Sure, I will continue the discussion. > > 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 created by the proxied maintainer. > > However, I am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the > > 35 MiB source contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool > > exists, this would mean another manual step is required, which is, > > potentially, skipped most of the time, weakening our user's security. > > This is because I believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, > > nor any Golang tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor > > tarball against upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am > > wrong. 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 dropped. Go modules are verified by go tooling. That is why I went with a dependency tarball. > > I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but > > discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM > > as option but disallow its use if > > 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball Upstream doesn't need to provide a tarball, just an up-to-date "vendor" directory at the top level of the project. Two examples that do this are docker and kubernetes. If the "vendor" directory is in the project, EGO_SUM should not be used. This is already documented in the eclass. > > 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 proxied > > maintainer maintains the package > > These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 > distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the > 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) There is no way from within portage to tell whether a proxied maintainer or a developer maintains the package, and I don't think we should care. We don't want different qa standards for packages in the tree based on who maintains them. I think we should settle on one limit. I could check for that limit inside the eclass and make the ebuild process die if the limit is not observed. The concern, as I understand it, is about the sizes of the ebuilds and manifests for go software. Since the number of distfiles was mentioned, I will add it here and show it in my example numbers below. To stay with your example, restic has a 300k manifest, multiple 30k+ ebuilds and897 distfiles. I'm thinking the limit would have to be much lower. Say, around 256 entries in EGO_SUM_SRC_URI. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 software written in Go. The PR drops EGO_SUM in > favor of a vendor tarball created by the proxied maintainer. However, I > am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the 35 MiB source > contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool exists, this would > mean another manual step is required, which is, potentially, skipped > most of the time, weakening our user's security. This is because I > believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, nor any Golang > tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor tarball against > upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am wrong. > > I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but > discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM > as option but disallow its use if > 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball > 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 proxied maintainer > maintains the package I'm not sure I agree on these limits, given the authenticity problem exists regardless of how many dependencies there are. > In case of 3, I would encourage proxy maintainers to create and provide > the vendor tarball. > > The suggested EGO_SUM limits result from a histogram that I created > analyzing ::gentoo at 2022-01-01, i.e., a few months before EGO_SUM was > deprecated. > > - Flow > > 1: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/27050 > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
> 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. The PR drops EGO_SUM > in favor of a vendor tarball created by the proxied maintainer. > However, I am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the > 35 MiB source contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool > exists, this would mean another manual step is required, which is, > potentially, skipped most of the time, weakening our user's security. > This is because I believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, > nor any Golang tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor > tarball against upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am > wrong. > I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but > discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM > as option but disallow its use if > 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball > 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 proxied > maintainer maintains the package These numbers seem quite large, compared to the mean number of 3.4 distfiles for packages in the Gentoo repository. (The median and the 99-percentile are 1 and 22, respectively.) Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 created by the proxied maintainer. However, I am unaware of any tool that lets you practically audit the 35 MiB source contained in the tarball. And even if such a tool exists, this would mean another manual step is required, which is, potentially, skipped most of the time, weakening our user's security. This is because I believe neither our tooling, e.g., go-mod.eclass, nor any Golang tooling, does authenticate the contents of the vendor tarball against upstream's go.sum. But please correct me if I am wrong. I wonder if we can reach consensus around un-depreacting EGO_SUM, but discouraging its usage in certain situations. That is, provide EGO_SUM as option but disallow its use if 1.) *upstream* provides a vendor tarball 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 proxied maintainer maintains the package In case of 3, I would encourage proxy maintainers to create and provide the vendor tarball. The suggested EGO_SUM limits result from a histogram that I created analyzing ::gentoo at 2022-01-01, i.e., a few months before EGO_SUM was deprecated. - Flow 1: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/27050
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 is. > The rationale is that users should be able to copy ebuilds and eclasses > to their local overlays, and they should work there in the same way. > > There is an internal (and undocumented) Portage variable, but that > shouldn't be used. In that case, I'm left with two options. 1) continue with deprecating and removing EGO_SUM. 2) (suggested on IRC) allow EGO_SUM as long as it has below a certain low number of entries. It would need to be kept small to keep ebuilds and manifests from bloating too much. Thoughts? William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
> 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 [[ -n ${EGO_SUM} && in_main_tree ]]; then
> eqawarn "EGO_SUM is not allowed in the main tree"
> eqawarn "This will become a fatal error in the future"
> fi
> 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 is.
The rationale is that users should be able to copy ebuilds and eclasses
to their local overlays, and they should work there in the same way.
There is an internal (and undocumented) Portage variable, but that
shouldn't be used.
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 ::gentoo tree.
> >
> > As a result, overlays and ::guru can use the EGO_SUM or dist distfile
> > (remember, they don't have access to hosting on dev.g.o).
> Yes; this is the option I was trying to propose as an intermediate step
> until we have indirect Manifests that provide the best of both worlds
> (not bloating the tree, and not requiring creation of dep tarballs).
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 [[ -n ${EGO_SUM} && in_main_tree ]]; then
eqawarn "EGO_SUM is not allowed in the main tree"
eqawarn "This will become a fatal error in the future"
fi
The only question is, is there a way to reliably tell whether or not
we are in the main tree?
William
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 distfile > (remember, they don't have access to hosting on dev.g.o). Yes; this is the option I was trying to propose as an intermediate step until we have indirect Manifests that provide the best of both worlds (not bloating the tree, and not requiring creation of dep tarballs). -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 manifests and ebuilds are > on every user's system. > > I added mgorny as a cc to this message because he made it pretty clear > at some point in the previous discussion that the size of these ebuilds > and manifests is unacceptable. > > William 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 distfile (remember, they don't have access to hosting on dev.g.o). -- Arthur Zamarin arthur...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (Python, Arch Teams, pkgcore stack, GURU) OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 not simply do *both*. > > > > EGO_SUM has numerous advantages over dependency tarballs, but can not be > > used if the size of the EGO_SUM value crosses a threshold. So why not > > mandate dependency tarballs if a point is crossed and otherwise allow > > EGO_SUM? That way, we could have the best of both worlds. > > > > - Flow > > > > ++ this sounds most sensible. This is also how I've understood your > proposal. Remember that with EGO_SUM all of the bloated manifests and ebuilds are on every user's system. I added mgorny as a cc to this message because he made it pretty clear at some point in the previous discussion that the size of these ebuilds and manifests is unacceptable. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 tarballs, but can not be > used if the size of the EGO_SUM value crosses a threshold. So why not > mandate dependency tarballs if a point is crossed and otherwise allow > EGO_SUM? That way, we could have the best of both worlds. > > - Flow > ++ this sounds most sensible. This is also how I've understood your proposal. -- juippis OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 support is going away. We attempted another solution that was refused, so the only option we have currently is to build the dependency tarballs. 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 tarballs, but can not be used if the size of the EGO_SUM value crosses a threshold. So why not mandate dependency tarballs if a point is crossed and otherwise allow EGO_SUM? That way, we could have the best of both worlds. - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 > level (effectively means hacking GitHub, PyPi, or some standalone > project's Gitea/cgit/gitlab/etc. instance or similar), sources which > either have more scrutiny or have a limited blast radius. I don't quite follow what you mean. Upstream for go modules is actually proxy.golang.org, or some other similar proxy, which the go tooling knows how to access [1]. > Additionally if an upstream dependency has a security issue it's easier > to scan all EGO_SUM content and find packages that potentially depend on > a broken dependency and force a re-pinning and rebuild. The tarball > magic hides this completely and makes searching very expensive. I'm not comfortable at all with us changing the dependencies like this downstream for the same reason the Debian folks ultimately were against it for kubernetes. If you make these kinds of changes you are affectively creating a fork, and that would mean we would be building packages with untested libraries [2]. *snip* > Considering that BTRFS (and possibly other filesystems) support on the > fly compression the physical cost of a few inflated ebuilds and The problem here is the size of SRC_URI when you add the EGO_SUM_SRC_URI to it. SRC_URI gets exported to the environment, so it can crash portage if it is too big. > Manifests is actually way smaller than the logical size would indicate. > Compare that to the huge incompressible tarballs that now we need to > store. > > As a proxied maintainer or overlay owner hosting these huge tarballs > also becomes problem (i.e. we need some public space with potentially > gigabytes of free space and enough bandwidth to push that to users). > Pushing toward vendor tarballs creates an extra expense on every level > (Gentoo infra, mirrors, proxy maintainers, overlay owners, users). I agree that creating the dependency tarballs is not ideal. We asked for another option [3], but as you can see from the bug this was refused by the PMS team. That refusal is the only reason we have to worry about dependency tarballs. > It also breaks reproducibility. With EGO_SUM I can check out an older > version of portage tree (well to some extent) and rebuild packages since > dependency upstream is very likely to host old versions of their source. > With the tarballs this breaks since as soon as an ebuild is dropped from > mainline portage the vendor tarballs follow them too. There is no way > for the user to roll back a package a few weeks back (e.g. if new > version has bugs), unlike with EGO_SUM. The contents of a dependency tarball is created using "go mod download", which is controlled by the go.mod/go.sum files in the package. So, it is possible to recreate the dependency tarball any time. I do not see any advantage EGO_SUM offers over the dependency tarballs in this space. > Finally with EGO_SUM we had a nice tool get-ego-vendor which produced > the EGO_SUM for maintainers which has made maintenance easier. However I > haven't found any new guidance yet on how to maintain go packages with > the new tarball method (e.g. what needs to go into the vendor tarball, > what changes are needed in ebuilds). Overall this complifates further > ebuild development and verification of PRs. The documentation for how to build dependency tarballs is in the eclass. The GOMODCACHE environment variable is used in the eclass to point to the location where the dependency tarball is unpacked, and that location is read by the normal go tooling. > 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 support is going away. We attempted another solution that was refused, so the only option we have currently is to build the dependency tarballs. > > Cheers, > Zoltan > > [1] > https://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2021/02/19/the-modern-packagers-security-nightmare/ > [1] https://go.dev/ref/mod [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/835599/ [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 understood it correctly. > > The biggest package that I have that uses Go is docker (and accompanying > tools). Personal distaste of docker aside, it's a very popular piece of > software, and I don't think it's fair to require all the people who want > to use it to first enable and sync gentoo-go before they can install it. It could be enabled by default for everyone, and people would have the choice to disable it or mask everything except what they are using in that case, so the extra user toil could be avoided by a creaful rollout. I'm not saying it would be an elegant solution though. > > And what about transitive dependencies? Suppose app-misc/cool-package is > written in some language that isn't Go, but it has a dependency on > sys-apps/cool-util which has a dependency on something written in Go. > Should a user wanting to install cool-package have to enable the > gentoo-go overlay now too? Even though app-misc/cool-package would look > like it doesn't need the overlay unless you dig into the deps. This is however a valid point, something I did not consider. Any reverse dependencies (i.e. packages in main portage tree depending on gentoo-go) would be anithetical to the overlay philosopy (the other direction of dependencies is okay though). This invalidates my separate overlay suggestion, consider it withdrawn. However I think that my other points still stand, until someone convinces me otherwise. > > Not a dev, just a user who really likes Gentoo :) Thanks for your perspective, it was a valueable observation. :) > > - Oskari > Cheers, Zoltan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 this on the ML I went back and have re-read the threads before > writing this piece. I'd like to provide my perspective as user, a > proxied maintainer, and overlay owner. I also run a private mirror on my > LAN to serve my hosts in order to reduce load on external mirrors. > > Before diving in I think it's worth reading mgorny's blog post "The > modern packager’s security nightmare"[1] as it's relevant to the > discussion, and something I deeply agree with. > > With all that being said, I feel that the tarball idea is a bad due to > many reasons. > > From security point of view, I understand that we still have to trust > maintainers not to do funky stuff, but I think this issue goes beyond > that. > > 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 > level (effectively means hacking GitHub, PyPi, or some standalone > project's Gitea/cgit/gitlab/etc. instance or similar), sources which > either have more scrutiny or have a limited blast radius. > > Additionally if an upstream dependency has a security issue it's easier > to scan all EGO_SUM content and find packages that potentially depend on > a broken dependency and force a re-pinning and rebuild. The tarball > magic hides this completely and makes searching very expensive. > > In fact using these vendor tarballs is the equivalent of "static > linking" in the packaging space. Why are we introducing the same issue > in the repository space? This kills the reusability of already > downloaded dependencies and bloats storage requirements. This is > especially bad on laptops, where SSD free space might be limited, in > case the user does not nuke their distfiles after each upgrade. > > Considering that BTRFS (and possibly other filesystems) support on the > fly compression the physical cost of a few inflated ebuilds and > Manifests is actually way smaller than the logical size would indicate. > Compare that to the huge incompressible tarballs that now we need to > store. > > As a proxied maintainer or overlay owner hosting these huge tarballs > also becomes problem (i.e. we need some public space with potentially > gigabytes of free space and enough bandwidth to push that to users). > Pushing toward vendor tarballs creates an extra expense on every level > (Gentoo infra, mirrors, proxy maintainers, overlay owners, users). > > If bloating portage is a big issue and we frown upon go stuff anyway (or > only a few users need these packages), why not consider moving all go > packages into an officially supported go packages only overlay? I > understand that this would not solve the kernel buffer issue where we > run out of environment variable space, but it would debloat the main > portage tree. > 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. The biggest package that I have that uses Go is docker (and accompanying tools). Personal distaste of docker aside, it's a very popular piece of software, and I don't think it's fair to require all the people who want to use it to first enable and sync gentoo-go before they can install it. And what about transitive dependencies? Suppose app-misc/cool-package is written in some language that isn't Go, but it has a dependency on sys-apps/cool-util which has a dependency on something written in Go. Should a user wanting to install cool-package have to enable the gentoo-go overlay now too? Even though app-misc/cool-package would look like it doesn't need the overlay unless you dig into the deps. Not a dev, just a user who really likes Gentoo :) - Oskari > It also breaks reproducibility. With EGO_SUM I can check out an older > version of portage tree (well to some extent) and rebuild packages since > dependency upstream is very likely to host old versions of their source. > With the tarballs this breaks since as soon as an ebuild is dropped from > mainline portage the vendor tarballs follow them too. There is no way > for the user to roll back a package a few weeks back (e.g. if new > version has bugs), unlike with EGO_SUM. > > In fact I feel this goes against the spirit of portage too, since now > instead of "just describing" how to obtain sources and build them, now > it now depends on essentially ephemeral blobs, which happens to be > externalized from the portage tree itself. I'm aware that we have > ebuilds that pull in
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 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 > > >> Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? > > > What is 'this' here? > > Undeprecating EGO_SUM. > > > The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the > > go-module eclass. > > > Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency > > tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to > > dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo. Like I said on my earlier reply, there have been packages that break using EGO_SUM. Also, Robin's proposal will not be happening, if it does, for some time since it will require an eapi bump and doesn't have a working implementation. The most pressing concern about EGO_SUM is that it can make portage crash because of the size of SRC_URI, so it definitely should not be preferred over dependency tarballs. If you want to chat more about this on the list we can, but for now, let's not undeprecate EGO_SUM in the eclass. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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. 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. 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. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate 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 propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. 1: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa >> Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? > What is 'this' here? Undeprecating EGO_SUM. > The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the > go-module eclass. > Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency > tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to > dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo. OK. Thanks for the clarification. Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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 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 Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? What is 'this' here? The patchset does not make changes to any package manager, just the go-module eclass. Note that this is not about finding about an alternative to dependency tarballs. It is just about re-allowing EGO_SUM in addition to dependency tarballs for packaging Go software in Gentoo. - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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. :/ - Flow
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
> 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 favor of eventually removing EGO_SUM, >> I hereby propose to undeprecate EGO_SUM. >> >> 1: >> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1a64a8e7694c3ee11cd48a58a95f2faa Can this be done without requesting changes to package managers? Previous examples are unexporting variables because their size exceeds the limit of the Linux kernel [2], or introduction of additional phase functions that bypass Manifest validation [3]. > "We've been rehashing the discussion until all opposition got tired > and stopped replying, then we claim everyone agrees". [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/721088 [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to undeprecate EGO_SUM
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". -- Best regards, Michał Górny
