On 02/06/2023 10.31, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 10:17 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
On 30/05/2023 18.35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
On 30/05/2023 18.52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
can live with. To achieve a
On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 10:17 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 30/05/2023 18.35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > On 30/05/2023 18.52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
> > > can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule
Hi Arthur,
thanks for your mail.
On 30/05/2023 18.35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
On 30/05/2023 18.52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule out that
I missed a post that
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:30:58AM +0200, pascal.jaeger leimstift.de wrote:
>
> > Arthur Zamarin hat am 30.05.2023 18:35 CEST
> > geschrieben:
> >
> >
> > Currently the best solution *per package* is to speak with upstream, to
> > add a CI workflow which create a source tarball which includes
Andrew Ammerlaan writes:
> On 30/05/2023 18:35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>> My solution is as such:
>> 1. Undeprecate EGO_SUM in eclass
>> 2. Forbid it's usage in ::gentoo (done by pkgcheck, error level, will
>> fail CI and as such we can see the misuse). Overlays are allowed.
>> 3. Maintainer
Just FYI, here is a working GitHub action for generating vendor tarballs in the
same repo but with different branches
https://github.com/bekcpear/gopkg-vendors/blob/main/.github/workflows/make-vendor.yaml
It has already worked for a long time.
Sincerely.
Ryan
> 在 2023年5月31日，14:20，Andrew
> Arthur Zamarin hat am 30.05.2023 18:35 CEST
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Currently the best solution *per package* is to speak with upstream, to
> add a CI workflow which create a source tarball which includes `vendor`
> dir. This is the best way, and I'm doing that for multiple upstream of
> some
On 30/05/2023 18:35, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
My solution is as such:
1. Undeprecate EGO_SUM in eclass
2. Forbid it's usage in ::gentoo (done by pkgcheck, error level, will
fail CI and as such we can see the misuse). Overlays are allowed.
3. Maintainer starts talks with upstreams to add release
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 21:30:49 +0500, Anna (cybertailor) Vyalkova wrote:
> On 2023-05-30 17:52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
> > can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule out that
> > I missed a post
On 30/05/2023 18.52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> I am thankful that the council considered my request to vote on the
> topic. However, the council decided not to vote on this in its last
> session and to return the issue to the mailing lists.
>
> Some see the requirement of some limitations as
On 2023-05-30 17:52, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> To prevent harm from Gentoo, we should reach an agreement that everyone
> can live with. To achieve a consensus, and since I can not rule out that
> I missed a post that includes specific numbers, please share your ideas
> on how EGO_SUM could be
On 24/04/2023 18.11, Florian Schmaus wrote:
I like to ask the Gentoo council to vote on whether EGO_SUM should be
reinstated ("un-deprecated") or not.
I am thankful that the council considered my request to vote on the
topic. However, the council decided not to vote on this in its last
On 08/05/2023 14.03, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:53 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Furthermore, both numbers, 256 MiB and 410 MiB, are based on the
over-approximation that every EGO_SUM package uses 1.6 MiB, which is
almost certainly not the case. The mean package-directory size
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:53 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 02.05.23 21:45, Sam James wrote:
> > Florian Schmaus writes:
> > > On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
> > > > Florian Schmaus writes:
> > > > > On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM
On 02.05.23 21:45, Sam James wrote:
Florian Schmaus writes:
On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
Florian Schmaus writes:
On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting
On 02.05.23 22:04, Matt Turner wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:33 PM Florian Schmaus wrote:
I performed a tree-wide analysis regarding EGO_SUM and IIRC published
the results in my previous post about EGO_SUM last year.
https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum-2022-01-01.txt shows the analysis
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:33 PM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I performed a tree-wide analysis regarding EGO_SUM and IIRC published
> the results in my previous post about EGO_SUM last year.
> https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/ego_sum-2022-01-01.txt shows the analysis
> results for ::gentoo as of 2022-01-01
Florian Schmaus writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
>> Florian Schmaus writes:
>>
>>> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>>> On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> The discussion would
Florian Schmaus writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 28/04/2023 16.34, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 08:59 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>> And I never said that I believe in representing the majority's opinion.
>>> That said, I prefer to have this voted on by an
On 28/04/2023 16.34, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 08:59 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
And I never said that I believe in representing the majority's opinion.
That said, I prefer to have this voted on by an all-developer vote than
a council vote. Then we would know what the majority
On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
Florian Schmaus writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
EGO_SUM deprecation could
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 08:59:29AM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 27/04/2023 14.54, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 09:58 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >> Disk space is cheap.
> >
> > No, it's not. Gentoo supports more hardware than your average PC with
> > beefy hard drive
On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 08:59 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 27/04/2023 14.54, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 09:58 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > Disk space is cheap.
> >
> > No, it's not. Gentoo supports more hardware than your average PC with
> > beefy hard drive and/or
On 27/04/2023 14.54, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 09:58 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Disk space is cheap.
No, it's not. Gentoo supports more hardware than your average PC with
beefy hard drive and/or possibility of installing one. Let's not forget
that you need a ::gentoo
On 27/04/2023 11.24, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Network traffic, while also being cheap, may be more of an issue.
Currently, gentoo-latest.tar.xz is ~41 MiB. So on a conservative
approximation ::gentoo compresses to 1/10. So, the 10 Go-packages
cause 200
Michał Górny writes:
> On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 01:38 +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> Pascal Jäger writes:
>>
>> > Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but didn’t we switch to shallow
>> > checkouts for the systems repository? I remember it was a major
>> > outcry on the mailing list. So at least for end
On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 01:38 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> Pascal Jäger writes:
>
> > Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but didn’t we switch to shallow
> > checkouts for the systems repository? I remember it was a major
> > outcry on the mailing list. So at least for end users git keeps no
> > history
Pascal Jäger writes:
> Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but didn’t we switch to shallow
> checkouts for the systems repository? I remember it was a major
> outcry on the mailing list. So at least for end users git keeps no
> history and our repository history should not impact clone size of a
>
Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but didn’t we switch to shallow checkouts for the
systems repository? I remember it was a major outcry on the mailing list. So at
least for end users git keeps no history and our repository history should not
impact clone size of a shallow copy, should it?
> On
Florian Schmaus writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>> The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
>>> EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main
On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 13:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> That, however, doesn't remove the concern about big ebuilds and
> manifests. I will look at the remainder of the thread to figure out
> what is going on with that.
You do know that the main reason it was deprecated in ::gentoo was the
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:28:22PM +0500, Anna (cybertailor) Vyalkova wrote:
> On 2023-04-17 09:37, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > The EGO_SUM alternatives
> > - do not have the same level of trust and therefore have a negative
> > impact on security (a dubious tarball someone put somewhere,
On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 09:58 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> Disk space is cheap.
No, it's not. Gentoo supports more hardware than your average PC with
beefy hard drive and/or possibility of installing one. Let's not forget
that you need a ::gentoo checkout even on a system running purely
on
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> Network traffic, while also being cheap, may be more of an issue.
> Currently, gentoo-latest.tar.xz is ~41 MiB. So on a conservative
> approximation ::gentoo compresses to 1/10. So, the 10 Go-packages
> cause 200 KiB of additional traffic. Even
On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main arguments why we
deprecated EGO_SUM.
You're requesting the changes.
Florian Schmaus writes:
> Hi Sam,
>
> thanks for your feedback. I am glad for everyone who engages in this
> discussion and shares their views and new information.
>
> On 24/04/2023 22.28, Sam James wrote:
>> Florian Schmaus writes:
>> [CCing williamh@ as go-module.eclass & dev-lang/go
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 3:31 PM Andrew Ammerlaan
wrote:
>
> On 26/04/2023 18:12, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >> The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
> >> EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the
> This way ridiculously large manifests are gone out of ::gentoo. But overlays
> can
> still use the EGO_SUM method for their go packages if a tarball is too much of
> a hassle. And everyone is happy. It is then the responsibility of the overlay
> maintainers to ensure that their manifests don't
On 26/04/2023 18:12, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main arguments why we
deprecated EGO_SUM.
You're requesting the changes.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the
> EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main arguments why we
> deprecated EGO_SUM.
You're requesting the changes. It's on you to read the previous
Hi Sam,
thanks for your feedback. I am glad for everyone who engages in this
discussion and shares their views and new information.
On 24/04/2023 22.28, Sam James wrote:
Florian Schmaus writes:
[CCing williamh@ as go-module.eclass & dev-lang/go maintainer.]
I like to ask the Gentoo
My 2 cents. As somebody who contributes to ::guru, I would like to
second that having a burden of hosting dependencies tarballs feels
like an obstacle. Pursuing upstream projects to adopt dependencies
bundling is often difficult (it's hard to convince developers to
change their workflows to make
Florian Schmaus writes:
[CCing williamh@ as go-module.eclass & dev-lang/go maintainer.]
> I like to ask the Gentoo council to vote on whether EGO_SUM should be
> reinstated ("un-deprecated") or not.
>
> EGO_SUM is a project-comprehensive matter, as it affects not only
> Go-lang packaging but
I like to ask the Gentoo council to vote on whether EGO_SUM should be
reinstated ("un-deprecated") or not.
EGO_SUM is a project-comprehensive matter, as it affects not only
Go-lang packaging but also the proxy-maint and GURU projects.
Furthermore, as I have mentioned in my previous emails,
On 2023-04-17 09:37, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> The EGO_SUM alternatives
> - do not have the same level of trust and therefore have a negative
> impact on security (a dubious tarball someone put somewhere, especially
> when proxy-maint)
Solution: generate release tarballs in upstream CI/CD.
> -
45 matches
Mail list logo
