On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:36:07AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2019-09-16 at 17:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:50:12AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > > On 9/16/19 11:35 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > > > > For packages that I maintain, I'd prefer to continue using EGO_VENDOR > > > > > to > > > > > even with packages using go.mod. I hope that this go-module.class will > > > > > not preclude this sort of usage. For example, the latest go-tools > > > > > ebuild > > > > > uses EGO_VENDOR together with GOFLAGS="-mod=vendor": > > > > > > > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=8cc6d401139526e2f9a6dbadbd31f0ff2387705f > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate on why you want to keep EGO_VENDOR? > > > > > > > > The "go mod vendor" command above downloads all the correct versions > > > > of the dependencies and puts them in the vendor directory, so I'm not > > > > sure why you would need the EGO_VENDOR variable. > > > > > > EGO_VENDOR eliminates to need to generate and host monolithic tarballs > > > containing vendored dependencies. It's more space-efficient in the sense > > > that each vendored dependency is stored in a separate tarball, so > > > multiple ebuilds can share the same tarball if the version of a > > > particular vendored dependency has not changed. > > > > I see what you are saying, but I haven't yet found a way to generate > > these separate tarballs that I'm comfortable with. Also, thinking about > > this, there will be many more tarballs on our mirrors if we store one > > dependency in each tarball than if we generate vendor tarballs that > > contain all dependencies for a package. > > > > I would consider this an enhancement to the eclass if you still feel > > that we need it, but let me get the eclass into the tree first then we > > can work on that. > > > > That sounds like a bad idea. If there are any potential enhancements > that can happen, I'd rather see them happen before there's a bunch of > ebuilds using the eclass in the wild, and potentially limiting possible > changes.
Like I just said on IRC, it would have been better if you responded in terms of discussing the enhancement itself. The main blocker for me is that EGO_VENDOR is basically the same information as go.mod, but it isn't quite the same format. You can get close with "go list -m all", but EGO_VENDOR doesn't automatically handle imports that start with things like golang.org/x or gopkg.in; you have to manually fix those, and you would have to do that every time. That seems to be a lot of work for little gain. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
